Supreme Court: Requisition Order Must Establish Public Purpose, Not Indefinite

The Supreme Court held that the order of requisition does not need to specify the public purpose explicitly but must establish a public purpose. It emphasized that requisition must be temporary and cannot continue indefinitely, as this blurs the line between requisition and acquisition. The Court found the requisition in this case had lasted unreasonably long at about 30 years. The Court upheld the High Court's decision to derequisition the flat and evict the appellant, dismissing the appeal and giving a deadline for vacating the flat.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the order of requisition without specifying the public purpose.
2. Continuation of requisition for an indefinite period.
3. Challenge to the requisition order after a long delay.
4. Appellant's claim of becoming a direct tenant.

Summary:

1. Validity of the order of requisition without specifying the public purpose:
The Supreme Court held that it is not necessary for the order of requisition to explicitly set out the public purpose for which it is made. The law only requires that the requisitioning must be for a public purpose. The Court referenced the case of *State of Bombay v. Bhanji Munji & Anr.*, stating that the omission to set out the purpose in the order is not fatal as long as the public purpose is established to the satisfaction of the court. In this case, the High Court found no material to show the public purpose for which the order was made, and this view was upheld by the Supreme Court.

2. Continuation of requisition for an indefinite period:
The Supreme Court emphasized the distinction between requisition and acquisition, noting that requisition must be of temporary duration. The Court stated that continuing requisition for an indefinite period would blur the distinction between requisition and acquisition, effectively allowing the government to take over property without acquiring it and paying full market value as compensation. The Court held that the order of requisition, even if valid when made, ceased to be valid after a reasonable period of time. In this case, the requisition had continued for about 30 years, which was deemed unreasonably long.

3. Challenge to the requisition order after a long delay:
The appellant contended that the 3rd respondent could not challenge the requisition order after a lapse of over 30 years. The Supreme Court acknowledged that if the only ground of challenge was the lack of public purpose, the writ petition might have been dismissed due to the delay. However, the Court found another formidable ground of challenge: the indefinite continuation of the requisition order. This ground was sustained, and the Court held that the State Government was bound to revoke the requisition order and derequisition the flat.

4. Appellant's claim of becoming a direct tenant:
The appellant argued that by paying rent to Rukmanibai, he had become a direct tenant, making the requisition order irrelevant. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, stating that the appellant's occupation of the flat was under the order of requisition. Any payment of rent to Rukmanibai did not alter the nature of his occupation or make him a tenant. The Court upheld the High Court's decision to direct the State Government to derequisition the flat and evict the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the High Court's order to derequisition the flat and evict the appellant. The appellant was given time until 28th February 1985 to vacate the flat, provided he filed an undertaking within two weeks. No order as to costs was made.

---