SHRIMATI LILAVATIBAI Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a petition the petitioner challenged a requisition order made on January 27, 1954. Mr. Justice Tendolkar dismissed the Petition and the petitioner has come in appeal.

(2.) THE petitioner is the widow of one Dharamdas Chellarm who died on November 24, 1953. The order was pasted on the premises in which the which continued to live after the death of her husband. The order has been challenged on various grounds by Mr. Jethmalani, and the first ground is that the mandatory provisions of Section 13 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act have not been complied with. It is urged that service has not been effected as required by Section 13(1)(c) upon the petitioner, she being a person who is affected by the order. Now, in a recent decision a division bench of this Court in Kedar Charandas Yarma v. State of Bombay (1955) O.C.J. Appeal No. 7 of 1955, January 27, 1955 (Unrep.) has taken the view that what is obligatory upon the State is to prove either that service was effected as required by Section 13(1)(c) or that a person affected had information of the order aliunde. The result of effecting service in accordance with the provisions of Section 13(2)(c) is to confer this advantage upon the State that the proof of service constitutes a conclusive proof that the person affected by the order had information of the order. In this case it is not disputed -indeed it is the case of the petitioner herself -that she had knowledge of the order on January 29, 1954. Therefore, in view of that decision there is no substance in this contention.

(3.) THE third contention urged by Mr. Jethmalani is that the order is directed against D. Chellaram who admittedly was dead at the date when the order was made, and it is urged that the order being passed against a dead person is a nullity. Now, when we look at the scheme of the Land Requisition Act, it is clear that the orders of requisition are made quae premises and not against any particular person. This order is made under Section 6(4)(a) and all that the requisition order requires is that it must be with regard to premises which fall within the ambit of the Act and it must state a public purpose. There is no suggestion in Section 9(4)(a) whatsoever that in order that a valid order should be made the order should state that it is directed against a particular person. Indeed, if no names had been mentioned at the foot of the order at all, the order would still be good provided it sought to requisition premises as defined in the Act and the order was made for a public purpose. Mr. Jethmalani says that we must read Section 6(4)(a) in conjunction with Section 13, and he says that if we do so, it would be clear that a valid order must state against whom it is directed. In our opinion, far from Section 13 helping the contention of Mr. Jethmalani it is wholly opposed to that contention. The very fact that in Section 13(1)(e) the language used by the Legislature is not 'an order made against an individual or directed against an individual', but the language used is 'an order affecting an individual', clearly shows that once an order is made with regard to certain premises, then in order to enforce that order against a particular individual whom the order affects, service has got to be effected. Therefore, nowhere in the Act is there any provision which makes it obligatory upon the State Government to state in the order against whom the order is made or directed. At the most all that can be said is that the order to the extent that it is directed against D. Chellram is bad and the order cannot be enforced against a dead person. But to the extent that the order affects the petitioner, if the order is properly made, it can be enforced against her. It is fallacious to draw an analogy between a requisition order and a suit. A suit must be filed against a definite party, and if a suit is filed against a dead person, the suit would be a nullity. But if a valid requisition order does not require a person, to be a party to the order, then the fact that the person mentioned at the foot of the order is dead cannot affect the validity of the order.