The court held that the orders of requisition and acquisition were invalid because they were made without jurisdiction.

Headnote:
HEADNOTE : [KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs were the trustees of a certain trust and were in possession of an immovable property admeasuring about 1,10,000 square yards situated at Tardeo Junction, Bombay. On 7-3-1942, possession was given either of the whole of this plot or a very large portion of it to the Supplies Department which belonged to the Govt. of India, this possession was given in contemplation of a lease which was proposed to be entered into between the plaintiffs and the Govt. of India. On 1-4-1942, a requisition order was passed by which this property was requisitioned, and on 28-10-1942 an order of acquisition was passed acquiring this property, it is these two orders of requisition and acquisition which are being challenged by the plaintiffs in this suit. The plaintiffs' contention is that they are still the owners of this property free from requisition or acquisition ordered under these two orders.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to amend their plaint to include a new cause of action, that the orders of requisition and acquisition were invalid, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages. The court also held that the defendants were entitled to claim privilege over certain documents.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to amend their plaint to include a new cause of action? 2. Whether the orders of requisition and acquisition were valid? 3. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to damages? 4. Whether the defendants were entitled to claim privilege over certain documents?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to amend their plaint to include a new cause of action because the amendment did not introduce a new or fresh cause of action. The cause of action was the same as alleged in the notice, namely, the invalidity of the orders of requisition and acquisition. The amendment merely gave further grounds in support of the contentions and allegations which went to constitute the plaintiffs' cause of action. 2. The court held that the orders of requisition and acquisition were invalid because they were made without jurisdiction. The Collector had no power to make these orders without forming the opinion required by the rules or acquiring it for purposes other than those mentioned in the rule. The absence of these two conditions would not be merely the failure to carry out a formality required by the law, but it would be an illegality which would affect the very jurisdiction and power of the requisitioning authority. 3. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to damages because the orders of requisition and acquisition were invalid. The plaintiffs had suffered loss and damage as a result of the defendants' wrongful acts.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the suit to the learned Judge. The plaintiffs were allowed to amend the plaint in terms of the draft put in by them. The defendants were ordered to disclose certain documents and to file a supplementary written statement if so advised. The learned Judge was directed to reconsider the findings on the issues in the light of the judgment and the amendment of the plaint.

Judgment

Chagla, C.J.

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Tendolkar J. by which he dismissed the pltfs. suit. The pltfs. are the trustees of a certain trust as such trustees they were in possession of an immovable property admeasuring about 1,10,000 square yards situated at Tardeo Junction, Bombay. It would appear that on 7-3-1942, possession was given either of the whole of this plot or a very large portion of it to the Supplies Department which belonged to the Govt. of India, this possession was given in contemplation of a lease which was proposed to be entered into between the pltfs the Govt. of India. On 1-4-1942, a requisition order was passed by which this property was requisitioned, on 28-10-1942 an order of acquisition was passed acquiring this property, it is these two orders of requisition acquisition which are being challenged by the pltfs. in this suit. The pltfs. contention is that they are still the owners of this property free from requisition or acquisition ordered under these two orders.

2. In order to understand appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is necessary to look into the provisions of the law under which these two orders were made. Under Rule 79 (1), which is a rule made under Section 2 (2), Defence of India Act, 1938, power was given to the Central Govt. to requisition property, provided in the opinion of that Govt. ic was necessary or expedient so to do for securing the defence of British India, the public safety, the maintenance of public order, or the efficient prosecution of war, or for maintaining supplies services essential to the life of the community. Under Sub-clause (2) of that rule where land was requisitioned by the Central Govt, the Central Govt. had the power to dispose of use such land in such manner as it thought fit. A notfn. was issued on 26-4-1941, by which the powers which the Central Govt. had under Rule 79 (1) were also conferred upon the Provincial Govt. A further notfn. was issued on 4-10 1941, by which all the powers conferred on the Central Govt. in regard to requisition were made esercisable also by all Collectors within the limits of their respective jurisdiction. This power of delegation was exorcised by the Central Govt. under Section 3 (4), Defence of India Act. By that sub-section: "the Central Govt. may. by order direct that any power or duty which by rule under Subrule (1) is conferred or imposed upon the Central Govt. shall in such circumatances under such conditions, if any as may be specified in the direction be exercised or discharged:

(a) by any officer or authority subordinate to the Central Govt. or

(b) by any Provincial Govt. or fay any officer or authority subordinate to such Govt. or

(c) by any other authority." Whereas in the case of the notfn. of 26-4-1941, the delegation was made to the Provincial Govt. under Sub-clause (b), by the notfn. of 4-10-1941, the delegation was made under Sub-clause (c) to any other authority. A further nobfn. was issued on 26-11-1941, the material portion of which provided that where land had been requisitioned by the Central Govt. or the Provincial Govb. it was given the power to acquire such land by serving on the owner thereof the necessary notice, it further provided that where such notice of acquisibion was served the land shall vest absolutely in the Central or the Provincial Govb. making the acquisition free from all encumbrances, the period of the requisition thereof shall end. Therefore, for the first time on 26-11-1941, power of acquisition was conferred upon the Central Govt. the Provincial Govt. On 16-5-1942, Rule 75A was passed the effect of that rule was to consolidate Rule 79 with bhe amendments which had been made thereto by the various notfns. by this rule, Rule 79 was deleted. On 25-4-1942, a notification was issued by the Government of India by which the powers conferred on the Central Govt. by Rule 76A were delegated to Collectors within their respective districts, o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document