TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, as amended, was beyond the legislative competence of the Provincial or State Legislature and violated the constitutional limitation against compulsory acquisition for public purposes; (ii) whether the requisition order dated 29-5-1950 was invalid for not stating the public purpose.
Issue (i): Whether the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, as amended, was beyond the legislative competence of the Provincial or State Legislature and violated the constitutional limitation against compulsory acquisition for public purposes.
Analysis: The statutory power to requisition property was distinguished from compulsory acquisition because requisition did not transfer title or ownership. The legislative history, including the special power conferred under the Government of India Act, 1935, supported that requisitioning was a distinct subject and not the same as acquisition. The duration of the requisitioning power was held to be limited by the life of the Act, so the Act did not authorise acquisition for an indefinite period. The Court further held that the Constitution did not confine the State Legislature's competence to requisitioning only for public purposes, and that the expression used in the Act could be construed, consistently with legislative competence, as limited to purposes other than Union purposes. The validating and amending legislation was treated as a permissible legislative measure and the earlier constitutional objection was not accepted.
Conclusion: The Act was held to be intra vires and valid, and the challenge to its constitutionality failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the requisition order dated 29-5-1950 was invalid for not stating the public purpose.
Analysis: The later amendment was given retrospective effect from 26-1-1950, so the order had to be tested as an order made under the Act as amended. On that footing, an order of requisition was required to disclose the public purpose for which the premises were taken. Since the impugned order did not state that purpose, it was defective on its face.
Conclusion: The requisition order was invalid.
Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge to the requisitioning legislation failed, but the particular requisition order was struck down for non-disclosure of the public purpose, so the appeal failed while the respondent retained relief against the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi: Requisitioning is legally distinct from acquisition, and a requisition statute may be upheld if it can be construed within legislative competence and does not authorise a constitutionally forbidden acquisition; however, a requisition order must itself disclose the public purpose where the statute as amended requires it.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
