AMIN CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMIN Chand petitioner is the owner of residential house which is situated near the Airport at Pathankot. On 22nd April 1964 an order under Section 29 of the Defence of India Act No. 51 of 1962 was passed by the competent authority directing the requisition of certain properties in Pathankot including the said house of the petitioner and further ordering the owners and occupiers of the property to deliver possession of the same to the Military Officer concerned at the spot on 28th April 1965 after removing therefrom any furniture or other movable articles contained therein. The petitioner made a representation against the above said order but it was turned down except that one month's time was allowed to him to vacate the premises and an order, dated 23rd August 1965 was passed by the competent authority (copy Annexure 'f') directing the petitioner to remove his goods, etc. , from the property in question within one month from that day. Availing of the time allowed by the competent authority to the petitioner for vacating the house he moved this Court on 20th October 1965 under Article 226 of the Constitution to annul the above said orders for the requisition of his house as well as factory and other building of the Co-operative Society of which he was the President. In the writ petition the claim was to order the said property to be de-requisitioned. From the use of those words I understand the petitioner to have meant to claim annulment of the impugned orders as this Court has no powers to de-requisition any property which has been requisitioned by the competent authority under the Act.

(2.) IN its written statement, dated 11th November 1965 the Union of India has averred that after taking into account the representation of the petitioner it was not considered desirable to exclude the property in question from requisitioning because due to the prevailing conditions in the country and proximity of the wing to the international border the security requirements were to be affected. The Government has further stated that after the rejection of the petitioner's representation, fresh notices have been issued to him on 30th August 1965 to vacate the premises and the notices were received by the petitioner on 7th September 1965 and his relative Kewal Krishan appeared before the Land Acquisition Collector, Gurdaspur-cum-Military Lands Requisitioning Officer, Jullundur, for allowing the petitioner one month's time to vacate the property and that time was consequently allowed to the petitioner upto 8th October 1965. On the 9th October 1965 the petitioner was again asked to deliver possession and instead of doing the needful at the spot, the petitioner filed this writ petition and obtained a stay order from this Court.

(3.) AT the hearing of this petition Shri M. R. Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and quashed on the ground that they are vitiated by mala fides. The solitary allegation of mala fides made in the petition is contained in Para. 6 (iii) of the petition and is in the following words:-