Recorded ownership and public purpose upheld for requisition and acquisition of land for an affordable housing scheme.

Service of requisition notice on the person recorded as owner in official land records was treated as valid where subsequent purchasers had not yet completed mutation, because the authority could rely on the presumptively correct record of rights without conducting a further inquiry into unmutated transfers. Requisition and acquisition for a housing project were also upheld as serving a public purpose, since the scheme was directed to affordable housing for low and middle income groups and remained under State control. The presence of a profit element did not, by itself, establish colourable exercise of power, absent mala fides, arbitrariness, or abuse of authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether service of notice under Section 3(2) of the requisitioning statute was valid when it was served on the persons recorded as owners in the record of rights rather than on subsequent purchasers whose names had not yet been mutated. (ii) Whether the requisition and subsequent acquisition were vitiated for want of public purpose or as a colourable exercise of power.

Issue (i): Whether service of notice under Section 3(2) of the requisitioning statute was valid when it was served on the persons recorded as owners in the record of rights rather than on subsequent purchasers whose names had not yet been mutated.

Analysis: The statutory scheme required service of the requisition order on the owner as reflected in the official land records, and the record of rights maintained under the land reforms law was treated as a public and presumptively correct record. The purchasers had acquired the land earlier but their mutation had not been completed when the requisition and acquisition steps were taken. In these circumstances, the authority was entitled to rely on the recorded ownership and was not bound to make a roving inquiry into possible transfers or pending mutation proceedings. Service on the recorded owners therefore satisfied the statutory requirement.

Conclusion: Notice under Section 3(2) was validly served and the challenge based on non-service failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the requisition and subsequent acquisition were vitiated for want of public purpose or as a colourable exercise of power.

Analysis: The land was requisitioned and later acquired for a housing project intended to address acute housing shortage, particularly for low and middle income groups. The statutory housing framework permitted execution of housing schemes through a joint sector company under State and Board supervision, and the mere presence of a profit element did not negate public purpose where the scheme was designed to provide affordable housing and the State retained control over the project. The Court also emphasised restraint in reviewing policy choices directed to social welfare objectives absent mala fides, arbitrariness, or abuse of power. On the facts, the project served a public purpose and the impugned action disclosed no colourable exercise of power.

Conclusion: The requisition and acquisition were valid and the challenge on public purpose and colourable exercise of power failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the High Court order was set aside, and the writ petitions were dismissed because the requisition, acquisition, and transfer of the land for the housing project were held to be legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where official land records show a person as owner, service of notice on that recorded owner satisfies the statutory notice requirement, and requisition or acquisition for an affordable housing project implemented under State-controlled statutory powers remains for a public purpose despite a profit element if no arbitrariness or abuse of power is shown.

---