Public purpose in land requisition upheld where accommodation was provided to homeless persons despite absence of an express recital.

Property requisition under the Bombay Land Requisition Act was upheld where the Court found a legitimate public purpose in providing accommodation to homeless persons during an acute housing shortage. The absence of an express recital of purpose in the requisition order was not fatal because the public purpose was otherwise established on the record. The Court also held that a practical allocation policy for some vacancies to first informants did not negate the scheme's public character, since the real object remained housing the homeless. The requisition orders were therefore not ultra vires under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(2).

---

---

Issues: Whether the requisition orders under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 were invalid for want of a public purpose and for infringing the constitutional protection of property rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The right to hold, acquire and dispose of property under Article 19(1)(f) applies where there is a real and substantial proprietary interest capable of enjoyment; where requisition leaves only a bare husk of title and substantially deprives the holder of ordinary incidents of ownership or possession, the matter falls within Article 31. The Act provided compensation, so the constitutional inquiry turned on whether the requisition was for a public purpose. The absence of an express recital of purpose in the original order was not fatal if the purpose was otherwise established. On the material before the Court, the requisitions were made to provide accommodation to homeless persons in an acute housing shortage, which was a legitimate public purpose. The policy of allotting some vacancies to first informants who genuinely needed accommodation did not destroy the public character of the scheme, since the real object remained housing the homeless and the Government was entitled to adopt a practical method for implementing that object.

Conclusion: The requisition orders were not ultra vires on the ground of absence of public purpose or violation of Articles 19(1)(f) and 31(2) of the Constitution of India.

---