STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. IBRAHIM ISMAILJI NAGREE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, the State of Maharashtra, requisitioned the disputed premises by an order dated December 30, 1949 under the provisions of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the order of requisition no specific purpose was mentioned, though the order purported to be one under Clause (a) of Sub -section (4) of Section 6, for public purpose. This order was addressed to the two landlords, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and to respondent No. 3, who was the proposed allottee. A copy thereof was endorsed to R -3, B.G. Dholakia, an Executive Engineer, Electric Grid Office in the State of Maharashtra; By another order bearing the same date, the premises was allottee to Dholakia. After having occupied the premises for about ten years, Dholakia vacated them, Soon after Dholakia left, the premises was 'allotted by another order dated May 7, 1959 to the present respondent No. 3.

(2.) RESPONDENTS Nos. 1 and 2 objected to the allotment of the premises in favour of respondent No. 3 by their letter dated June 27, 1959. The Government replied to the respondents by their letter dated July 13, 1960, and stated' that the allottee was a homeless person, After having waited for more than ten years, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a writ petition on the Original Side of this Court on December 19, 1970, They explained the delay by pointing out that till 1970 until the Bank Nationalisation (R.C. Cooper v. Union of India : [1970]3SCR530 ) was decided the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Gopalan v. State of Madras : 1950CriLJ1383 , and State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji : [1955]1SCR777 , held the field. It is after the judgment of the Supreme Court in the Bank Nationalisation case that they could specifically challenge, the constitutional validity of the Act and the order passed thereunder.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3, who was the beneficiary under the second allotment, never filed any affidavit at all. The State of Maharashtra justified its order by pointing out that the original order was a general order of requisition! without indicating a particular public purpose. It was open to them to allot the premises in such a manner that the allotment always continues to be for public purpose, The allotment to Dholakia was an allotment to a Government servant, which was obviously an admitted public purpose. The subsequent allotment was to a homeless person and accommodating a homeless person is also a public purpose. So long as the allotment continues to be for a public purpose, the requisition order remains in force. On facts, it was pleaded that respondent No. 3 was in fact a homeless person, On these pleadings and after hearing the parties, the learned single Judge came to the conclusion that respondent No. 3 was admittedly not a Government servant and was also not shown to be, by satisfactory evidence, to be a homeless person. The allotment to respondent No. 3 was, therefore, to a person who was not shown to be a homeless person. Such an allotment in the year 1959 showed that the original order of requisition got itself exhausted. The occupation by respondent No. 3 was unauthorised. The learned Judge also rejected the challenge on the ground of delay or latches and field that the pleadings in para. 9 of the petition gave good ground for the original petitioners to file the petition for the first time in 1970. The learned Judge, therefore, allowed the writ petition and declared the requisition order as exhausted and quashed the same. Being aggrieved, the State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal.