SATBIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE three minor petitioners Maharaja Satbir Singh of Jind and his two brothers maharajkumar Gajbir Singh and Maharajkumar Ravi Inder Bir Singh, have brought this petition for a writ of certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India through their guardian Shri B. S. Grewal, Financial Commissioner, Punjab, to impugn the requisition proceedings in respect of the bungalow 'shanti Niketan' at 1. Sikandra Road, New Delhi initiated at the instance of the Collector, Delhi, by his notice of 9th of January, 1961. The notice to show cause was considered by the Collector in the detailed order passed by him on 10th of March, 1961, in which the objections of the petitioners were dismissed and the order of requisition was made under sub-section (2) of section Immovable Property Act 1952. An appeal was preferred to the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, and it was dismissed by him on 17th of April, 1961.

(2.) THE petitioners have now invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of setting aside the requisition which has been confirmed by order of the Chief Commissioner. The house was at first requisitioned in the year 1941 and was released to the owners in two different stages in 1957 and 1958. Thereafter, Maharaja Rajbir Singh of Jind along with his wife Maharani Prithvi Bir kaur who is the step-mother of the petitioners, resided in the house. The Maharaja died in this house on 7th of September, 1959.

(3.) UNDER section 3 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable property act, 1952, a competent authority may call upon the owner to show cause within fifteen days why the property should not be requisitioned, and the purpose of the requisition has to be specified in such notice. No property or a portion thereof can be requisitioned if "it is bona fide used by the owner thereof as the residence of himself or his family". It has been the case of the petitioners both before the collector and the Chief Commissioner who is the appellate authority that the house, which had been requisitioned, had been in their bona fide use as owners and, therefore, the requisitioning is contrary to the provisions of law.