BANSIDHAR Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for the issue of a writ of mandamus against the District Magistrate of Bolangir, directing him to release the petitioner's house from requisition and to deliver possession thereof to the petitioner. The petitioner states in his petition that he had constructed a new house bearing No. 364 in Bolangir for residential purposes of himself and of his family members; but that he had at the time another ancestral house available to him for occupation, and hence let out this house at a rental of Rs. 150/ - per month to the Co -operative Department from 15 -6 -48; that, now, he required the house for his own occupation, since his younger brother who was entitled to a half share in the ancestral house had retired from service and wants to occupy his half share. The petitioner states that by order dated 9 -12 -49, the District Magistrate of Bolangir purporting to exercise powers under Section 13, Orissa Maintenance of Public Order Act, 4 of 1948, requisitioned his house inspite of his protests and fixed a monthly rental of Rs. 73/ -. The District Public Relations Officer, acting on the order of requisition passed by the District Magistrate got delivery directly from the Co -operative Department which was in possession of the house by then. The petitioner has accordingly come up to this Court for relief. The order of requisition that has been challenged is in the following terms:

(2.) I may state at once that in this case there, is no material at all placed before us to show, apart from the mere fact that the previous rent which the petitioner appears to have been getting, was Rs. 150/ - and the rent fixed by the Government was Rs. 73/ - p.m. that the requisition order was in fact 'mala fide'. That contention may, therefore, be dismissed out of consideration. The first two contentions raise the following Questions: (1) Whether the issue about the necessity for requisitioning of the house for 'securing services and supplies essential to the life of the community' is one that is subject to the review of the Court : (2) whether a statement on the face of the requisition order showing the exact purpose for which the requisition was required, is essential for the validity of the order.

(3.) THE question, however, in such cases, has to be determined with reference to the specific wording of the relevant statutory provision. The case in AIR 1951 Bom 404(A), is one that arose under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, Act 33 of 1948, as amended in 1950. The relevant provision of that Act which is Section 6(4) as appears from the quotation in that judgment may be taken to be as follows :