Judgment

BHARUCHA, J. (for himself and on behalf of VENKATACHALIAH, C. J., J. S. VERMA AND S. C. AGRAWAL, JJ.):-Writ Petition (C) No. 404 of 1996. President, Association of Allottees of Requisitioned Premises, Bombay v. State of Maharashtra, originated upon a letter written to the then Chief Justice of India. It was treated as a writ petition and numbered accordingly. On 21st July, 1986 rule was issued upon the writ petition and it was referred to a five-Judge Bench for hearing. Accordingly, it comes to be heard by us. The writ petition, in effect, seeks reconsideration of the decision in H. D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 2 SCC 337, which was decided by a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court.

2. While the aforementioned writ petition concerns premises requisitioned for the purposes of residential use under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (hereinafter called "the said Act"). Writ Petition No. 53 of 1993, Grahak Sanstha Manch v. State of Maharashtra, concerns premises requisitioned under the said Act for commercial use. Therein the petitioners are an association of co-operative societies running fair price ration shops in Bombay in premises requisitioned under the said Act. Some of its members are also petitioners and others are respondents. Each of these premises was requisitioned more than 45 years back. Some of these co-operative societies have now been served with a notice by the State Government calling upon them to vacate the premises on or before 26th December, 1992 so that the premises may be derequisitioned. The writ petition prays for a writ of mandamus commanding the State Government not to evict the petitioners from the requisitioned premises. In effect, this writ petition too seeks reconsideration of the judgment in H. D. Voras case (AIR 1984 SC 866).

3. Both writ petitions have been heard together and may conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.

4. In H. D. Voras case (AIR 1984 SC 866), a flat in a residential building was requisitioned by an order dated 9th August, 1951, by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred by Section 6(4)(a) of the said Act. The flat was allotted to the appellant, H. D. Vora, who was neither a Government servant nor a homeless person. The allotment was made despite an earlier refusal by the State Government to do so. The ownership of the building having changed hands, the new owner requested the State Government to derequisition the flat on the ground that its allotment in favour of the appellant could not be said to be for a public purpose. This not having been done, the owner filed a writ petition in the High Court at Bombay challenging the continuance of the order requisitioning the flat on the ground that it could not survive for such a long period of time. Upon an examination of the material that was placed before it the High Court held that there was no material which showed the public purpose for which the order of requisition of the flat was made and there was no denial on the part of the State Government of the averment that the appellant was neither a Government servant nor a homeless person. This Court, in appeal, found the High Courts view well founded and held that it was not possible to say on the material on record that the order of requisition had been made for a public purpose. But it was contended on behalf of the appellant that even if the order of requisition was invalid as having been made for a purpose other than a public purpose, the owner of the building was not entitled to challenge the same after a lapse of over 30 years and the writ petition ought, therefore, to have been dismissed. This Court said (AIR 1984 SC 866 at pp. 869-70):

"Now if the only ground on which the order of requisition was challenged in the writ petition was that it was not made for a public purpose and was therefore void, perhaps it might have been possible to successfully repel this ground of challenge by raising an objection that the High Court should not