Requisition of property under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, can only be for a temporary purpose. If the need for requisition becomes permanent, the government must acquire the property under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Headnote:
LAND REQUISITION - BOMBAY LAND REQUISITION ACT, 1948 - SECTION 3(A), 49(1) - REQUISITION OF BUILDINGS FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE - CONTINUATION OF REQUISITION BEYOND TEMPORARY NEED - VALIDITY - ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY - LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - SECTION 49(1).
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, owners of two buildings requisitioned under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, challenged the continued requisition of their properties for over 25 years, arguing that it amounted to an acquisition without following the due process under the Land Acquisition Act.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that requisition of property for a public purpose is valid only if it is of a temporary nature. If the need for requisition becomes permanent, the government must acquire the property under the Land Acquisition Act, and continued requisition would be an abuse of power.
Issues: 1. Whether the requisition of buildings under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, can be continued indefinitely? 2. Whether the government can acquire a part of a building under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra and Tiwani Kumar Paraki v. First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, which held that requisition of property can only be for a temporary purpose and cannot be continued indefinitely. 2. The court interpreted section 49(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to hold that the government has the power to acquire a part of a building, subject to the owner's right to insist on the acquisition of the entire building.
Final Decision: The court quashed the requisition orders for the petitioners' buildings but granted the government 18 months to decide whether to acquire the properties. If the government decided to acquire, it had to complete the process expeditiously, failing which it had to hand over vacant possession of the premises to the petitioners.

JUDGMENT - K. REDDY, C.J.:---A common question of law that arises in these two writ petitions is whether the requisition of certain buildings made under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") of 1948, more than twenty five years ago can validly be continued? The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 102 of 1985 is the owner of Block No. 11, Ganesh Building at 122 Navi Peth, Jalgaon. It was requisitioned on 18th April, 1953 for the allotment to the employees of the Maharashtra State. Ever since the date of requisition it has been continuously allotted to different officers. The last such order of the allotment was made on 16th October, 1984 and the order of requisition was continued. Like wise the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 922 of 1985 is the owner of the building i.e. Alai Bungalow bearing House No. 1369, Kanheri Wadi, Near Shivaji Garden, Nasik, which formed the subject-matter of the requisition first made on 27th June, 1949. It has been allotted continuously upto this day to several officers. The petitioner herein purchased this bungalow on 19th June, 1982 and made on representation to the Government to de-requisition it for his personal occupation since he was suffering from Asthama. That representation was rejected on 11th June, 1984. Both the buildings thus continued to be under requisition from 1953 and 1949 respectively.

2. The point that arises for our consideration is no longer res integra. In the case of (H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra and others)1, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 866, considering the validity of the requisition made under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, and which continued for over 25 years, the Supreme Court confirming the order of the High Court quashing the Requisition order held that :

"... the concept of requisition involves merely taking of domain or control over property without acquiring rights of ownership and must by its very nature be of temporary durations."

"If requisitioning of property could legitimately continue for an indefinite period of time, the distinction between requisition and acquisition would tend to become blurred, because in that event for all practical purposes the right to possession and enjoyment of the property which constitutes a major constituent element of the right of ownership would be vested indefinitely without any limitation of time in the requisitioning authority and it would be possible for the authority to substantially take over the property without acquiring it and paying full market value as compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

... ... ... ...

The Government (Karnataka) cannot under the guise of requisition continue for an indefinite period of time, in substance acquire the property, because that would be a fraud on the power conferred on the Government. If the Government wants to take over the property for an indefinite period of time, the Government must acquire the property but it cannot use the power of requisition for achieving that object.

... ... ... ..

Where the purpose for which the premises are required is of such a character that form the very inception it can never be served by requisitioning the premises but can be achieved only by acquiring the property which would be the case where the purpose is of a permanent character or likely to subsist for an indefinite period of time, the Government may acquire the premises but it certainly cannot requisition the premises and continue the requisitioning indefinitely."

The facts of this case are identical to the facts in the aforementioned Supreme Court case.

3. Shri Salik the learned Government Pleader, appearing for the State, however, contends placing reliance on the case of (Tiwani Kumar Paraki v. First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta and others)2, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1707 that the Requisition is not invalid. He relies on the following observations of the Supreme Court :---

"That the purpose of requisitioning was indisputably a public pu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document