DEEPAK PREMANAND KAMAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Writ Petitions can be conveniently decided by a common judgment as the main controversy is similar.

(2.) In Writ Petition No.72/84 the petitioner is challenging a Requisition Order (Exh.C to the petition) issued under Section 3 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952. That Section permits the requisitioning of a property if it is needed or likely to be needed for any public purpose, being a purpose of the Union. The Premises in which the petitioner in Writ Petition No.72/84 is interested are needed for the Office of the Mamlatdar, Salcete, the reason being that the existing building in which the said office is housed required immediate demolition and reconstruction. In Writ Petition No. 101/84 a similar Order (vide Exhibit C to the petition) has been issued for requisitioning the premises for the purpose of housing the Sales Tax Office. The premises where that Office was previously located also required immediate demolition and reconstruction. Thus, both the Orders have requisitioned the premises of the concerned petitioners and the purpose of requisitioning is: (1) to house the Office of the Mamlatdar; and (2) to house the Sales Tax Office.

(3.) In both these petitions, the main grievance is that the above mentioned purpose would not be a purpose of the Union as it was primarily a purpose in connection with the administration of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu. The contention therefore is that the Requisition Orders are bad on this count. In Writ Petition No.101/1984, there are certain other contentions. We would refer to them in due course.