GOUR ROYCHOWDHURY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an Order of requisition of first floor flat in premises No. 12, Abdul Hamid Street, Calcutta (formerly known as British Indian Street) made under West Bengal premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947. The said first floor flat of the said premises No. 12, Abdul Hamid Street, Calcutta was requisitioned as early as 1961 for the purpose of accommodation of a Government servant employed by the State of West Bengal.

(2.) The petitioner is the Administrator pendente lite in a Testamentary Suit No. 24 of 1980 in respect of estate of one Phulmani Desi since deceased. The said estate of said Phulmoni Dasi included, inter alia, a property being the said premises No. 12, Abdul Hamid Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises). By virtue of the said appointment of the petitioner as Administrator, the petitioner claims to be the custodian legis of the estate of the deceased above named including the said premises. The petitioner has come to know from the records available to the petitioner that the first floor flat in the said premises was requisitioned under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) under the provision of Section 3 of the said Act. The petitioner has also come to know from the records available to the petitioner that the said. first floor flat in the said premises was allotted to one Mr. Animesh Basu Majumdar who was working as an Officer Finance (Budget) Department, Government of West Bengal. According to the petitioner the said Animesh Basu Majumdar had left the fiat and one Prabhat Kumar Ghosh the respondent No. 4 is now occupying the flat which has been allotted to him. The respondent No. 4 is also a Government employee.

(3.) The petitioner challenges the said requisition on the ground that the said requisition being under a temporary Act cannot continue for an indefinite period. It is the contention of the petitioner that if the Government intends to take over the property for an indefinite period of time, the Government cannot exercise the power of requisition for achieving such object under a temporary Act being the said Act, and such requisition, according to the petitioner, being for an indefinite period amounts to an acquisition under a cover of a temporary Act and not following the procedure for acquiring a property under the relevant law. It is not in dispute that the said requisition was made in or about 1062 and has been continuing till now The said requisition Order is also challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the Original requisition Order having been made in respect of a particular person, the same ceased to have any effect when such - person for whom the flat was requisitioned vacated the said flat and the public purpose for which such requisition was made had also come to an end after the said flat had been vacated by the person for whom such flat had been requisitioned. It is also contended by the petitioner that the said requisition Order made in 1962 cannot continue for the purpose of accommodating another Officer. The petitioner has also contended that the requisition is made for the purpose of accommodating an Officer who could discharge his official duties by residing in a flat which would be near to his place of working, but according to the petitioner, that is not the case here as the present occupant the respondent No. 4 is now employed at Salimpur Employment Exchange which is about 8 and 9 K. M. away from the requisition Bat in which he resides. This, according to the petitioner, cannot be a public purpose for accommodating a government servant considering the occupant's need of the present apace for smooth discharge of his Government duties.