JUDGMENT

S.B. Majmudar, J.-The appellants in this appeal by special leave have brought in challenge the order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissing the writ petition moved by the appellants before that Court. The appellants had challenged an order dated 29th October 1976 passed by the second respondent, District Magistrate-cum-Competent Authority, Kanpur, requisitioning 777 sq. yards and 7-1/3 sq. ft. of lands comprising of plot Nos. 36 and 36-A situated on the Mall, Kanpur in exercise of the powers of the second respondent under Section 23 of Defence and Internal Security of India Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The impugned order of second respondent merely mentioned that the said order of requisition was issued as it was necessary and expedient to requisition the property in question for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community. The appellants were called upon by the said order to deliver by 15th November 1976 possession of the said immovable property to the Director, Handlooms and Managing Director of U.P. State Handloom and Powerloom Finance and Development Corporation Ltd., Kanpur, U.P., respondent No. 3 herein. During the writ proceedings it transpired that the said requisition order was issued with a view to seeing that the concerned respondent-Corporation could construct shops and showrooms in the land in question for exhibiting its handloom products which were manufactured by handloom weavers. The appellants contended before the High Court that the aforesaid purpose of requisition was de hors the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. It was next submitted that as it was a permanent purpose power of requisition under the Act would not be invoked for fructifying the said purpose and in any case such a requisition order could not continue indefinitely and hence the continued enforcement of the said order resulted in unreasonable exercise of power on the part of the second respondent. The Division Bench of the High Court was not persuaded to accept the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and dismissed the writ petition. That is how the appellants are before us in this appeal.

Rival Contentions

2. Shri Sibal, learned senior counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the Act itself was a temporary Statute having the limited existence being enacted during emergency, both external and internal, and had already ceased to operate since long and that the purpose for which the requisition was resorted to was de hors the provisions of Section 23 of the Act as providing a showroom for exhibiting the wares manufactured by weavers could not be said to have any nexus with the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the life of the community. He also submitted that in any case the purpose being of a permanent nature could not have been made the subject-matter of an order requisition under Section 23 of the Act.

3. He lastly submitted that in any view of the matter the continued enforcement of the impugned order for all these years till date had become totally unreasonable and even on that ground the requisition order which had outlived its existence and legal efficacy deserves to be quashed.

On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Shri Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for respondent No. 3 contended that the impugned requisition order was within the forecorners of Section 23 of the Act and that it was not as if the requisition could be resorted to only for a limited period or only for a temporary purpose. That requisition can be made for subserving even a permanent purpose.

It was next contended that the lands under requisition belonged to the State. They were Nazul lands. They were earlier leased out by two separate Lease Deeds in favour of one J.N. Mehrotra in the years 1920 and 1932 respectively. That the initial period of 30 years in respect of each of the leases had