Judgment

R. C. LAHOTI, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted in all SLPs.

( 2 ) THE Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control, Bom bay Land Requisition and Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) (Amend ment) Act, 1996 (Act No. XVI of 1997) having been struck down as ultra vires of the Constitution and as being beyond legislative competence of the State legislature, the State of Maharashtra, the Welfare Association of Allottees of requisitioned Premises, Maharashtra and several others have come up in appeal. The decision by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay was delivered on 27th July, 1998. The judgment posed the threat of eviction against several allottees in occupation of premises requisitioned by the State Government. Several Writ Petitions were filed which were all disposed of by the impugned judgment of the Division Bench. The principal question which arises for decision in the batch of appeals is the constitu tional validity of Amendment Act No. XVI of 1997 abovesaid (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act, for short ). Historical background : Two decisions of this Court:

( 3 ) A brief statement of historical background leading to the present controversy is apposite. In the year 1948, Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (Act No. XXXIII of 1948) was enacted to make provision for the requisition of land and for the continuance of requisition of land and for certain other purposes. land was widely defined so as to include therein building also and premises were defined to mean building or part of building intended to be let sepa rately and other things appurtenant (as defined ). Land and vacant premises could be requisitioned by the State Government for any public purpose. Provision was also made for continuance of requisitions made tinder the requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1947 and the Defence of india Act, 1962 and the rules made thereunder. Section 8 of the Act made provision for payment of compensation to persons -whose property was req uisitioned or continued to be subjected to requisition to be determined by an officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government. The basis of compensation can be spelt out from the following part of sub-section (1) of section 8 :"the officer shall determine such amount of compensation as he deems just having regard to all the circumstances of the case; and in particular he shall be guided by the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 23 and Sec tion 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (as in force in the Bombay area of the State of Maharashtra) insofar as they can be made applicable. "

( 4 ) IT appears that the shortage of accommodation in Bombay and the difficulties likely to be faced by the occupants to whom the requisitioned land and premises were allotted by the State Government resulted in the requisitioned properties continuing under requisition for endless periods of time. The constitutional validity of such requisition was put in issue before the High Court in the follo\ving factual background. On 2nd April, 1951 a flat was requisitioned by the State Government and allotted to a person. The owner made a request in 1964 to the Competent Authority for derequisitioning the flat, -which was rejected. A purchaser of the property in 1973 once again made a request to derequisition the flat, which too was turned down. The owner filed a Writ Petition in the year 198o. under Article 226 of the Constitution, laying challenge to the validity of the requisition. One of the grounds of challenge was that the requisition order could not survive for such a long period of time and the Government was bound to derequisition the flat. The Writ Petition was allowed. The occupant came in appeal by special leave to this Court. Vide its judgment dated February 22, 1984 (H. D. Vora v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. , (AIR 1984 (1984) 2 SCO 337), this Court held that the power of requisitioning I80866 is exercisable by the Government only for a public pur