The requisition of the petitioners' property under the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1948, was valid and continued under the Act, and there was no mala fides or improper motive.

( 1 ) THIS Rule was obtained by the petitioners calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why a writ in the nature of mandamus should not be issued and possession of the premises mentioned in the petition should not be restored to the petitioners or such other or further order should not be made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

( 2 ) THE petitioners are two ladies who are resident of No. 3, Ashutosh De Lane in the City of Calcutta. The opposite parties to the Rule are (1) Director of Land, Hirings and Disposal, Eastern Command, (2) Assistant Director of Land, Hirings and Disposal, Eastern Command, (3) State Manager, Government of India States, Calcutta Area, (4) Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, and (5) Post Master General, Bengal Circle.

( 3 ) THE petition was supported by an affidavit of' Chandalal Khandelwal, husband of petitioner No. 2. The counter-affidavit on behalf of the opposite parties was sworn to by opposite party No. 3. The further affidavit on behalf of the petitioners was also sworn to by Chandalal Khandelwal, husband of petitioner No. 2.

( 4 ) THE premises in respect of which the dispute has arisen is plot No. 352 Southern Avenue Extension. The area of the said plot is 47 cottas out of which 17 cottas is alleged to be covered with buildings. The petitioners are the owners of the said premises. On the 8th of May, 1943, the aforesaid premises were requisitioned under Rule 75 (a) of the Defence of India Rules and the petitioners were directed to place at the disposal of the Additional Land Acquisition Collector the said premises from the 20th of May, 1943. In pursuance of the said requisition possession of the said premises was delivered to the Land Acquisition Collector on the 25th of May, 1943. The premises were derequisitioned on the 3rd of July, 1943. On the 19th of October, 1943, the petitioners submitted a bill claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,555/ -.

( 5 ) ON the. 11th of March, 1944, the said premises were again requisitioned under Rule 75 (a) of the Defence of India Rules. The petitioners allege that the premises were placed in the possession of the military authorities and thereafter they are in the possession of the employees of the Postal Department who have opted to West Bengal from East Pakistan. It may be noted that the bill which was submitted by the petitioners claiming Rs. 16,555/- was settled for a sum of Rs. 1200/ -. The petitioners allege that this settlement was not a voluntary one. On the 30th of May, 1945, the petitioners entered into an agreement with the Government that the latter would remain in possession of the said premises for the period of the requisition and a sum of Rs. 600/- per month was settled as the compensation to be paid to the petitioners for the occupation by the Government. On the 19th of May, 1949, and thereafter there are demands by the petitioners for payment of adequate compensation. The petitioners allege that these demands were unheeded by the opposite parties. The petitioners, therefore, allege that they have made a demand for justice and that they have accordingly made this application under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution.

( 6 ) MR. Roy appearing on behalf of the petitioners has raised several contentions. In the first place, he contends that there should have been a fresh order made under the different legislations extending the operation of the Defence of India Act for requisitioning the premises. He also contends that the requisition of the premises was a mala fide one. He also contends that the impugned legislation, namely, the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act, 1948, (Act XVII (17) of 1947) is void of the Constitution under Article 31 thereof. He also contends that the said Act is void under Article 14 of the Constitution.

( 7 ) ON behalf of the opposite parties Mr. Meyer has raised certain preliminary objections. In the first place, he contends that the Union of India on whose behalf the requisi