1954 (5) TMI 23 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Extends Requisition Orders, Government Possession Deemed Lawful

THE DOMINION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Versus. SHRINBAI A. IRANI AND ANOTHER.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Court of Appeal's decree. It held that Clause 3 of the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) ... - Issues Involved:1. Construction of Clause 3 of the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Ordinance, 1946.2. Expiration and continuation of the requisitioning order.3. Legitimacy of Government's possession post-requisition period.4. Impact of Act IX of 1951 on the requisitioning order.Detailed Analysis:1. Construction of Clause 3 of the Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Ordinance, 1946The central issue in the appeal was the interpretation of Clause 3 of Ordinance No. XIX of 1946. The first respondent argued that the requisitioning order expired on 30th September 1946, and therefore, the government's continued possession was unlawful. The appellants contended that Clause 3 of the Ordinance allowed for the continuation of requisitioned properties beyond the expiration of the Defence of India Act, 1939, and its rules. The Court concluded that Clause 3, read with the definition of 'requisitioned land' in Clause 2(3), clearly indicated that all immovable properties under requisition as of 30th September 1946, continued to be subject to requisition until the expiry of the Ordinance. The non obstante clause did not limit the scope of Clause 3 and was included for abundant caution.2. Expiration and Continuation of the Requisitioning OrderThe first respondent contended that the requisitioning order was for a specific period, which had expired, making the continued occupation by the government illegal. The trial court and the Court of Appeal initially upheld this view, interpreting that the requisitioning orders limited by their terms could not be extended by the Ordinance. However, the Supreme Court found this interpretation incorrect, stating that the clear wording of Clause 3 extended all requisition orders, regardless of their original duration, as long as they were in force on 30th September 1946.3. Legitimacy of Government's Possession Post-Requisition PeriodThe first respondent also argued that the government's possession after the expiration of the requisitioning period was wrongful. The Supreme Court held that the requisition order continued to be valid under Clause 3 of the Ordinance, making the government's possession lawful until the expiry of the Ordinance. The Court emphasized that legislative measures, even those affecting property rights, must be given their full effect unless proven to be mala fide or an abuse of power.4. Impact of Act IX of 1951 on the Requisitioning OrderThe first respondent claimed that the requisitioning order ceased to be operative due to Act IX of 1951. However, this point was not addressed by the Court of Appeal, as it decided the case solely on the interpretation of Clause 3 of the Ordinance. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeal to consider this and other points raised but not decided by the lower court.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree of the Court of Appeal, and remanded the case for further hearing on all issues raised. The Court recognized the hardship faced by the first respondent but emphasized that the legislative framework must be adhered to unless proven otherwise. Both parties were ordered to bear their own costs.