JUDGMENT

Dwivedi, J. - The appellant is the owner of the bungalow No. 301, Urmila Shastri Road, Meerut Cantonment. On December 12, 1950 the District Magistrate, Meerut requisitioned a portion of the accommodation under Section 3, U.P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act, 147 (hereinafter called the Act). The accommodation was professedly wanted for a public purpose, namely, "for the residence of the Munsif". At the timed of requestion the appellant was, it appears, residing out of Meerut. He is now in Meerut. He has occupied the rest of the bungalow. He says that now he needs the requisitioned part of the bungalow. On July 5, 1966 he applied to the Administrative Commandant of the cantonment for release of the requestioned portion. The Commandant made an order releasing the portion. Thereafter he filed the present potion. It was dismissed by a learned Single in limine. He took the view that as the appellant had not approached the District Magistrate under Section 8 of the Act for release of the requisitioned portion he would not exercise discretion for interference.

2. As counsel for the appellant has raised before us two constitutional point it is not possible for us to relegate the appellant to his remedy under Section 8. It is necessary to decide those points in this potion. They cannot be determined by the District Magistrate.

3. Section 1(3) of the Act provides that it shall apply to such areas as the State Government may notify in the Gazette from time to time. By a notification dated December 16, 1947 the State Government has applied the Act to the Distt. of Meerut. So the entire city of Meerut including the cantonment part of it is governed by the Act.

4. The first argument of counsel for the appellant is that the Act could not be extended to the cantonment portion of the city of Meerut as the U.P. Legislative Assembly has no power to make a law with respect to the requestioning of buildings.

5. By the notification dated October 21, 1946 issued under Section 104, Government of India Act, 1935, the Governor General of India vested in the Provincial Legislature the power to make a law with respect to the requestioning of land. By relying on items 2 and 10 of List l and Items 8, 9 and 42 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act, 1935, counsel makes the submission that "land" in the aforesaid notification of the Governor General does not include houses. Item 2 of List I provides, inter alia, for "the regulation of house accommodation" in cantonment areas. Item 10 of List I deals with "works, land and buildings vested in, or in the possession of, His Majesty for the purposes of the Dominion". Item 8 of list II deals with "works, lands and buildings vested in, or in the possession of, His Majesty for the purposes of the Province. Item 9 of List II deals with 'Compulsory acquisition of Land'. Item 42 of List II deals with 'taxes on lands and buildings, hearths and windows.'

6. The argument is not tenable. Section 299(1) of the Government of India Act provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law. Sub-section (2) thereof provides that the Legislature shall have not power to make any law authorising the compulsory acquisition for public purposes of any 'land' unless the law provides for the payment of compensation for the property acquired. Sec-section (5) thereof provides that in Section 299 land' includes immovable property of every kind and any rights in or over such property. Sub-section (5) of Section 299 shows that the word 'Land' in Item 9 of List II will include buildings as well. The Government of India Act is a law made by the British Parliament. Accordingly the Interpretation Act, 1889 made by the British Parliament should be taken as an aid in the Interpretation of the Government of India Act. Section 3 of the Interpretation Act provides that in every Act passed after 1850 the expression 'land' shall be construed to include 'tenement and houses, and