PRITHVI CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 40 of the Defence of India Act (51 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Central government Delegated its powers under Section 29 of the Act, to various authorities including all Collectors in the States, by notification, dated December 13, 1962 Annexure 'b' ). In exercise of the powers conferred by the said notification, the Land Acquisition Collect, Gurdaspur district, issued the impugned order, dated August 24, 1963, requisitioning shop No. 2092 owned by Prithivi chand Petitioner under subsection (1) of Section 29 of the Act, as it was, in the opinion of the Punjab Government, necessary to open a co-operative consumers stores in the said shop for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community. Certain objections against the order of requisition were preferred by the petitioner, who was admittedly the owner of the shop and was carrying on his own crockery business therein, on August 29, 1963 (Annexure 'c') According to the petitioner those objections have not so far been disposed of and the petitioner was told by the requisitioning authority that the objections would be decided by a Committee. In the above-said circumstances, the present writ petition, dated August 31, 1963, was filed in this Court, and at the time of its admission by the Motion Bench on september 2 in that year, dispossession of the petitioner from the shop in dispute was stayed.

(2.) IT is somewhat unfortunate that the State of Punjab and the land Acquisition collector, Gurdaspur, have not thought it necessary to file any return to the rule issued in this case. Though almost four years have gone by since the writ petition was admitted. The statements of fact made in the writ petition have therefore, to be assumed to be correct.

(3.) IN support of the petition, it has firstly been urged that the appropriate authority, that is the Punjab Government or even the land Acquisition Collector, was not satisfied about the necessity or expediency of requisitioning the shop in question, and that in fact the said powers had been exercised in this case mala fide by an unknown Committee. No such specification. The reference in the writ petition. The reference in the writ petition to the Committee is related only to the disposal of the objections said to have been filed by the petitioner. Moreover, it has already been authoritatively held by their Lordships of the supreme court in Jute and Gunny Brokers Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1961 SC 1214, that in the absence of allegation of mala fides, the opinion of the authority expressed in the order of requisition is final. There is no specific allegation of mala fides of either the Punjab Government or of the Land Acquisition Collector in this case. In so far as the Land Acquisition Collector has stated in so many words in the impugned order (Annexure 'a') that it is necessary in the opinion of the Punjab government to requisition the shop in question for the purpose aforesaid, it is not possible for this Court to question the subjective satisfaction of the appropriate authority, in these proceedings. Mr. Aggarwal has argued that the impugned order refers to the satisfaction of the state Government, whereas the satisfaction required in this case was of the land acquisition Collector. The collector was acting in the instant case as a delegate of the State and the satisfaction of the State Government referred to by him can sagely be presumed to have been through the Collector himself.