9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Sections 5 and 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution. 2. Validity of requisition orders under Sections 5(1) and 6(4)(a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. 3. Requirement to state the public purpose in requisition orders. 4. Burden of proof regarding the legality of requisition orders. 5. Issuance of a writ of mandamus. Comprehensive, Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of Sections 5 and 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution: The respondents contended that Sections 5 and 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, were ultra vires Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution. The court noted that Article 19(1)(f) does not apply to tenants and licensees as they do not hold proprietary rights that can be restricted under Article 19(1)(f). The court referred to previous rulings, emphasizing that Article 19(1)(f) postulates the existence of property over which rights can be exercised, and substantial deprivation of property falls under Article 31. The court concluded that the Act provides for compensation under Section 8, and the requisition was for a public purpose, thus complying with Article 31. 2. Validity of Requisition Orders under Sections 5(1) and 6(4)(a) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948: The court examined whether the requisition orders conformed to the Act's provisions and were made for a public purpose as required by Sections 5(1) and 6(4). The orders did not initially specify the public purpose, but subsequent orders clarified that the premises were requisitioned to house the homeless. The court held that the omission to set out the purpose in the initial order was not fatal, provided the purpose was established through affidavits and subsequent orders. 3. Requirement to State the Public Purpose in Requisition Orders: The court addressed the argument that the subsequent specification of the public purpose was an afterthought. It ruled that while it is desirable to state the purpose in the initial order to avoid challenges, the omission is not fatal if the public purpose is established through other means. The affidavits and subsequent orders demonstrated that the requisition aimed to address the acute housing shortage in Bombay, which was a public purpose. 4. Burden of Proof Regarding the Legality of Requisition Orders: In Civil Appeal No. 146 of 1952, the court dealt with whether the premises were "let" or "intended to be let" under Section 4(3) of the Act. The trial judge placed the burden of proof on the State Government, but the court held that the burden was wrongly placed. The petitioners, alleging the illegality of the order, had the duty to prove it. However, due to an assurance by the Attorney-General that the petitioners' possession would not be disturbed, the court did not delve further into this matter. 5. Issuance of a Writ of Mandamus: The court found that the question of issuing a writ of mandamus became unnecessary given its conclusions on the other issues. The court allowed Civil Appeals Nos. 145 and 147 of 1952, dismissing the petitions in these cases without costs. Civil Appeal No. 146 of 1952 was dismissed due to the Attorney-General's assurance, and the High Court's order stood without costs. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 5 and 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution. It validated the requisition orders, provided the public purpose was established, and clarified the burden of proof in challenging such orders. The court dismissed the appeals with no order on costs, except for Civil Appeal No. 146 of 1952, which was dismissed based on the Attorney-General's assurance.
|
