Back
1990 Supreme(Cal) 367
High Court Of Calcutta
G. N. RAY, K. M. YUSUF
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Appellant
Versus
DAULAT SINGH SURANA - Respondent
F. M. A. T. 2224 Of 1987
Decided On : 09/07/1990
ASHOK GANGULY, DIPANKAR GHOSH, NARA NARAYAN GUPTA, PULAK RANJAN MONDAL, RABINDRA NATH DAS
The Government has the power to requisition premises even if it is in possession of them, provided that the requisition is for a public purpose.
Headnote:
WEST BENGAL REQUISITION AND ACQUISITION ACT, 1948 - Section 3(1) - Requisition of premises - Validity - Government's intention to acquire premises - Order of requisition as intermediate step - Legality - Acquisition of vacant land - Necessity - Justification.
Fact of the Case:
Premises No. 4, Pretoria Street, Calcutta, was requisitioned under the Defence of India Rules and later de-requisitioned. In 1959, it was requisitioned again under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947. The owners challenged the requisition and obtained a judgment quashing it. The State Government appealed, and the Court of Appeal upheld the judgment but allowed the State Government to acquire the premises under an appropriate Act within six months. The State Government decided to acquire the premises, including the vacant land, under the West Bengal Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 (Act II of 1948). The owners challenged the requisition and acquisition orders, and the trial court quashed them. The State Government appealed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the order of requisition was not illegal or ultra vires, as the Government had the power to requisition the premises even if it was in possession of them. The Court also held that the real object of the requisition order was not to continue the requisition, but to acquire the premises under Act II of 1948. The Court further held that the acquisition of the vacant land was necessary for the security control department of the police, as it was essential to maintain secrecy in the operation of the department.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of requisition was illegal or ultra vires. 2. Whether the real object of the requisition order was to continue the requisition. 3. Whether the acquisition of the vacant land was necessary for the security control department of the police.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the order of requisition was not illegal or ultra vires, as the Government had the power to requisition the premises even if it was in possession of them. The Court relied on the fact that the requisition order was passed for a public purpose, namely, to accommodate the security control department of the police. 2. The Court held that the real object of the requisition order was not to continue the requisition, but to acquire the premises under Act II of 1948. The Court relied on the fact that the Government had already decided to acquire the premises and had only passed the requisition order as an intermediate step. 3. The Court held that the acquisition of the vacant land was necessary for the security control department of the police, as it was essential to maintain secrecy in the operation of the department. The Court relied on the fact that the department required a secluded location to operate effectively.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court. The Court held that the order of requisition and the acquisition of the premises were legal and valid.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the learned trial Judge in a writ proceeding being C. R. No. 8407 (W) of 1987. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Judge has held that the impugned action of requisition and/or acquisition of premises No. 4, Pretoria Street, Calcutta is illegal and void. The learned trial Judge quashed the order of requisition being No. 8/86/ii/48 dated 31/05/1986 (Annexure 'a' to the writ petition) along with order dated 16/08/1986 passed under S. 4 of the West Bengal Requisition and Acquisition Act, 1948 (West Bengal Act II of 1948 ).
( 2 ) THE relevant facts concerning the writ petition and the instant appeal are set out hereunder. Premises No. 4, Pretoria Street, Calcutta was requisitioned under the Defence of India Rules. It appears that after the requisition, the ground floor was used as the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Security Control) and the first floor was used as the residential quarter of the said Deputy Commissioner. On 28/12/1947, the said property was de-requisitioned and after such de-requisition the Government became direct tenant under the then owners at a rental of Rs. 693. 00 per month. On 30th January, 1959, the said premises was requisitioned under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947 and the rent compensation was fixed at Rs. 777. 00 per month. In 1984, the writ petitioners being the owners of the said premises challenged the legality and validity of the said order of requisition and continuance of such requisition over a long stretch of time. Such writ proceeding was numbered as Matter No. 872 of 1984. After a contested hearing the said writ proceeding was disposed of by this Court and the learned single Judge disposing of the said writ petition was of the view that when it was intended by the Government to use the requisitioned premises permanently or for a very long period, there was no justification to keep the premises under requisition for such a long time. If the premises was really required for a public purpose, the Government should have acquired the same under the appropriate Act. In the circumstances, the learned trial Judge quashed the order of requisition under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947, but allowed the continuance of requisition of the covered area for six months and further directed that after six months the said requisition would stand quashed. If the State Government intended to keep possession of the premises in question, the acquisition proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act should be initiated within the said period and if such acquisition proceeding is not initiated, possession was to be delivered to the petitioners. So far as the garden land, that is, the uncovered portion of the premises is concerned, the learned Judge quashed the requisition in respect of such portion inter alia on the finding that the said portion was not required for public purpose. It appears that the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta passed an order of de-requisition of the garden land on 7/10/1985 but possession of the garden land was ultimately not delivered. On 17/10/1985 the State Government preferred an appeal against the said judgment of the learned trial Judge and such appeal was numbered as Appeal No. 508 of 1985 and the Court of appeal passed an ad interim order staying the operation of the order appealed from. After a contested hearing, the Court of Appeal made the ad interim order absolute on 18/11/1985. As a result, the operation of the judgment appealed from was stayed till the disposal of the appeal. The Court of Appeal disposed of the said appeal No. 508 of 1985 by his judgment dated 12/12/1985. The Court of appeal had observed that although the learned trial Judge had held that the vacant portion of the premises was not required for public purpose but the requirement of the vacant portion of the plot
