RANGUBAI PANDURANG JOSHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash an order of requisition under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, made on January 31, 1950, and an order of allotment made on June 16, 1'967, and for directing the State of Maharashtra and the Collector of Thana, who are respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, to hand over possession of the requisitioned property to the petitioner as its owner on the ground that the said order of requisition has ceased to be operative or lapsed due to the Government not having made use of it and consequently, therefore, the property was not under requisition at the date when the impugned order of allotment 'was made.

(2.) ONE P.V. Joshi, the petitioner's husband, was the owner of a building known as 'Joshi Bungalow' situate at Kharkar Ali, Thana. By the said order of requisition dated January 31, 1950, the ground floor of Joshi Bungalow was requisitioned by the then State of Bombay under Sub -section (7) of Section 5 Wedded, March 25, 1969. Special Civil A.I.R.[1906] Mad. 172, of the said Act. The said order is general in. its terms and does not specify the public purpose for which the premises were requisitioned. The premises were thereafter allotted to one V. N. Shastri, Clerk of the Court, of the District Court, Thana. In 1956, Shastri was transferred to Satara. Thereafter, by an order of allotment dated September 25, 1956, the premises were allotted to respondent No. 3 who had become the Clerk of the 'Court in Shastri's place. On October 6, 1957, Joshi died leaving the petitioner as his only heir and legal representative. Having come to know that respondent No. 3 was due to retire in 1961, the petitioner by her letter dated July 5, 1961, pointed out the said fact to the then Collector of Thana and requested him that instead of allotting the said premises to someone else, the same should be given back to her as she was a retired teacher and had decided to start a children's education centre in the said premises. As no reply was received to the said letter, the petitioner sent a reminder on July 22, 1961. By his reply dated October 12, 1961, the Collector of Thana intimated to the petitioner that her request could not he considered at that stage. The petitioner made one further application to the Collector to the same effect on October 14, 1961. By his letter dated October 15, 1961, the petitioner was informed by the Collector that her request could not be granted. Meanwhile, on November 9, 1961, respondent No. 3 retired from Government service.

(3.) ON June 16, 1967, the then Collector of Thana made an order allotting the said premises to respondent No. 4 who had joined the Treasury Office in Thana as a clerk on March 18, 1966. The affidavit in reply of the said Tamhane sets out what transpired during the interval between the applications made by the petitioner and the said allotment order and it makes interesting reading. From this affidavit it appears that in view of the application made by the petitioner, an eviction order was passed on April 5, 1967, under Section 8B(1) of the said Act directing respondent No. 3 to vacate the said premises within 15 days from the receipt of the said letter. Respondent No. 3 thereupon made an application on April 15, 1967, to the Collector of Thana requesting that he should be allowed to continue in occupation of the said premises as long as he was staying in Thana. By his reply dated May 5, 1967, the Collector intimated to respondent No. 3 that according to Government orders it was not possible to allow respondent No. 3 to retain the requisitioned premises for a further period as the landlady had objected to his occupation and asked respondent No. 3 to vacate the said premises on or before May 15, 1967. On May 15, 1967, respondent No. 3 made another application to the Collector in which he stated that since the order of eviction was made only one month ago, he had not sufficient time to make efforts for securing suitable premises. Respondent No. 3, therefore, requested the Collector to allot the said premises to his daughter, respondent No. 4, who was then 20 years old and had recently joined Government service. In the said application, it was stated that an application in that behalf was also being submitted to the Collector by respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 4's application is dated May 16, 1967. The ground made out in the said application for seeking an allotment in her favour is that though respondent No. 3 had retired from Government service in November 1961, he was allowed to continue in occupation by the then Collector of Thana in January 1962 but had now been directed to vacate and as she was a joint member of her father's family and a State Government employee, the said premises should be allotted to her. Thereupon, the impugned allotment order dated June 16, 1967, was passed in favour of respondent No. 4. The said order expressly refers to four documents, namely, the original order of requisition dated June 31, 1967, the original allotment order in favour of respondent No. 3, the said application dated May 15, 1967, from respondent No. 3 and the said application dated May 16, 1967, from respondent No. 4. A copy of the said impugned order was served not only upon respondent No. 4 but also upon respondent No. 3.