Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 727
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. Dhanuka, M.M. Sathaye, JJ.
Geeta Mangesh Laud and Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The Appellate Authority and The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department and ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 1836, 1653, 925 of 2012
Decided On : 04-05-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Sharan Jagtiani, Senior Advocate, a/w. Ms. Surabhi Agarwal, Mr. Vachan Bodke, Mr. Aniket Tawde, Ms. Trupti Talati and Mr. Hitesh Gupta i/b. M/s. V.M. Legal, for
For the Respondent:Mr. Mustafa Doctor, Senior Advocate a/w Cyrus Ardeshir, Mr. Nigel Quraishy i/b Mr. Dushyant Kumar, Mr. Abhay L. Patki, Addl. G.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the property remained under requisition, and the court rejected the argument that the only legal remedy available to the owner was to file a suit.
Headnote:
Requisition - Property Dispute - Defence of India Act, 1939, Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 - Section 7(1) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act - The court held that the subject property remained under requisition and the impugned notices and orders were within jurisdiction. The court also rejected the argument that the only legal remedy available to the owner was to file a suit, and allowed the owner's petition to direct the State Government to hand over possession of the property.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved three connected petitions concerning the subject property, which was requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1939. The owner sought to quash an order of requisition and recover possession, while the occupants challenged orders declaring them as unauthorized occupants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property remained under requisition and rejected the occupants' arguments against the impugned orders. The court allowed the owner's petition to direct the State Government to hand over possession of the property.
Issues: The main issues were the jurisdiction of the impugned notices and orders, the legal remedy available to the owner, and the status of the property under requisition.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the property remained under requisition, rejected the argument that the only legal remedy available to the owner was to file a suit, and allowed the owner's petition to direct the State Government to hand over possession of the property.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the occupants' petitions and allowed the owner's petition to direct the State Government to hand over possession of the property.
JUDGMENT :
M.M. SATHAYE, J.
1. Rule is already issued in these petitions. Respondents have appeared. The matters are heard at length for final disposal.
2. These three petitions are connected matters in as much as the subject matter property and the contesting parties are common. All three petitions are in respect of subject matter property which is Block Nos. 1 and 2 (Flat Nos. 4 and 5) on the first floor of building called Ruby Mansion situated on property bearing C. Survey No. 1873, Carnegy Lines, Near Metro Cinema, Mumbai. This property is hereinafter referred to as “the subject matter property or the said premises” for short.
3. The Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 1836 of 2012 and the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1653 of 2012 have filed petitions challenging the Judgment and orders dated 21st June 2010 and 27th July 2010 respectively passed by the Controller of Accommodation and the Appellate Order dated 26th August 2011 passed in File No. R-II/Niwas/88 by the Appellate Authority and Principal Secretary, General Administration Department (GAD), Government of Maharashtra in respect of flat Nos. 5 and 4 respectively.
4. Writ Petition No. 925 of 2012 filed by the Owner seeks prayer of quashing and setting aside an Order dated 17th July 1946, which is an order of requisition under the then existing the Defence of India Act (Act of XXXV of 1939). She also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent/State Government and the Collector of Mumbai to cancel/withdraw the order dated 17th July 1946 and to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises to her and to forthwith implement de-requisition order dated 24th July 1946 and 27th July 1946.
5. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 925 of 2012 is the present owner of the subject matter property, who is an old lady of advanced age and who is hereinafter referred to as “the Owner”. The Petitioners in the remaining two petitions i.e. Writ Petition Nos. 1836 of 2012 and 1653 of 2012 are the Occupants of the subject matter property who are hereinafter referred to as “the Occupants” for short.
6. The Occupants are legal heirs of one Mr. D.S. Laud, who was initially inducted in the said premises in 1940s under provisions of Defence of India Act and Rules made thereunder as a government officer in the Civil Supplies Department. It is admitted position that the said property is still in possession of his legal heirs against whom the Owner is litigating for recovery of possession.
7. Perusal of the prayers in these three petitions make it clear that the Occupants seek to challenge the concurrent findings against them under which they are declared as unauthorised occupants and are directed to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises. Needless to mention that if the two petitions filed by the Occupants fail, then we may not be required to go into all the prayers of Writ Petition No. 925 of 2012 filed by the owner, especially in view of the stand taken by the Respondent State Government in its submissions, to which we will advert in the following paragraphs.
8. Brief facts which has resulted in filing of these three petitions are summarized below:
8.1 By letter dated 13th July 1944, the Deputy City Engineer Bombay Municipality (as he then was), the then owner of the said premises (present owner’s predecessor) was informed that first floor of the subject matter property (consisting of flat Nos. 4 and 5) were retained for municipal use.
8.2 By letters of September 1944 to December 1944, the Bombay Municipality called upon the owner of the said premises to carryout repairs therein.
8.3 By order dated 17th July 1946, the Governor of Bombay (as he then was) ordered exercising powers under Rule 81(2) of the Defence of India Rules directing the owner to let the said premises to Ms. D.S. Laud w.e.f. the date the requisition order in respect of the premises is withdrawn.
8.4 By order dated 24.07.1946 the Collector Bombay ordered that the requisition is withdrawn w.e.f. 01s
