1951 (7) TMI 21 - HC - Indian Laws

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (Act XXXIII of 1948).
2. Competence of the Provincial Legislature to enact Act XXXIII of 1948.
3. Interpretation of requisitioning versus compulsory acquisition under Section 299(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935.
4. Validity and retrospective effect of the Bombay Land Requisition (Amendment) Act, 1950 (Act II of 1950).
5. Validity of the requisition order dated 29-5-1950.
6. Costs of the petition and appeal.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (Act XXXIII of 1948):
The Court emphasized that although the administration of the Act may have resulted in some hardship, it is a beneficent measure intended to subserve a very pressing social need. The Court must always lean in favor of holding the validity of an Act rather than against it. It was held that Act XXXIII of 1948 was not void and was within the legislative competence of the Provincial Legislature.

2. Competence of the Provincial Legislature to enact Act XXXIII of 1948:
The Court noted that in a previous appeal, it was conceded that the Provincial Legislature had legislative competence when the Act was passed in April 1948. The Court reiterated that the Act was passed by a competent Legislature. The legislative history showed that the Government of India issued a notification empowering all Provincial Legislatures to enact laws regarding the requisitioning of land, making it clear that requisitioning is different from acquisition.

3. Interpretation of requisitioning versus compulsory acquisition under Section 299(2) of the Government of India Act, 1935:
The Court distinguished between requisitioning and acquisition, stating that requisitioning does not transfer ownership or title, thus not amounting to compulsory acquisition. The legislative history and judicial precedents supported this view. The Court held that requisitioning for an indefinite period did not constitute acquisition within the meaning of Section 299(2).

4. Validity and retrospective effect of the Bombay Land Requisition (Amendment) Act, 1950 (Act II of 1950):
The Court held that Act II of 1950 was within the legislative competence of the State Legislature. It was not passing any new legislation but was extending the duration of Act XXXIII of 1948. The Court emphasized that when the Legislature extended the Act, it must be presumed to have done so within the scope of its competence. The retrospective amendment by Act XXXIX of 1950 cured any unconstitutionality by restricting requisitioning to public purposes.

5. Validity of the requisition order dated 29-5-1950:
The requisition order did not state the public purpose for which the property was requisitioned, making it bad on its face. The Court upheld the view that every requisitioning order must state the purpose of the State or any other public purpose. Since the order was made after 26-1-1950, it must be deemed to have been made under the amended Act, requiring the purpose to be stated.

6. Costs of the petition and appeal:
The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs of the appeal. Regarding the costs of the petition in the Court below, the petitioner was directed to pay three-fourths of the costs of the hearing of the petition to the State. The respondent's cross-objection was partly allowed, directing the State to hand over possession of the premises within seven days.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the validity of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, and its amendments, and declared the requisition order dated 29-5-1950 invalid for not stating the public purpose. The petitioner was directed to pay a portion of the costs incurred in the petition.

← Previous Next →