STATE Vs. HARBHAJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent raises a question upon the interpretation of the second proviso to sub-section (2) of section 25 of the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1953.

(2.) On the 12th August, 1952 the District Magistrate of Amritsar requisitioned a house belonging to one Sardar Harbhajan Singh under the provisions of the East Punjab Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1948, despite the protests of the owner that the house was in the actual use and occupation of himself and the members of his family. Sardar Harbhajan Singh presented a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained an order staying delivery of the possession of the house.

(3.) On the 15th April 1953 while this petition was awaiting the decision of the Court the State Legislature enacted a measure known as the Punjab Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1953, which provided that no property or part thereof shall be requisitioned if it is in the mala fide use of the owner as a residence for himself or for the members of his family. It repealed the earlier legislation but preserved the validity of certain orders issued under the Acts of 1948 and 1951. When the petition came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court the owner placed a number of affidavits on the record in support of the assertion that he was in actual occupation of the property when the notice of requisition was served on him on the 17th July 1952. The learned Single Judge held that although the order of requisition may have been good at the time it was passed, it had to be read with the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 25 and could not be deemed to be an order passed under the Act of 1953 unless it was consistent with the provisions of the said Act. In this view of the case the learned Judge accepted the petition and set aside the order of the District Magistrate dated the 12th August 1952. The State Government is dissatisfied with the order and has come to this Court in appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent.