WRIT PETITION NO. 73 OF 2015

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Principal Secretary/Appellate Authority dismissing an appeal against the order of the Controller of Accommodation under Section 8C(1) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, directing the petitioner to vacate the requisitioned premises.

Petitioner seeks to set aside the order dated 9 January 2014 and the order dated 26 February 2013, and to continue in possession of the requisitioned premises.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the direction to vacate the premises that have been in its possession since 1949 as an allottee.

1. Order of Controller of Accommodation dated 26 February 2013 under Section 8C(1) of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948; 2. Order of Principal Secretary/Appellate Authority dated 9 January 2014 dismissing appeal; 3. Judgment of Bombay High Court dated 2 March 1990 in Writ Petition No. 1720 of 1986 setting aside original requisition order dated 19 June 1948; 4. Supreme Court decision in H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 223 SCC 33; 5. Supreme Court Constitution Bench decision in Grahak Sanstha (mentioned but not detailed).

Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in dismissing the appeal against the vacation order Whether the continued requisition of the premises since 1948 is valid in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in H.D. Vora that requisition cannot continue indefinitely

the Controller of Accommodation by its letter dated 12 June 1989 addressed to the Petitioner informed that the Supreme Court in H. D. Vora 's case had held that a requisition of the property by its very nature is of a temporary duration and the Government cannot continue to hold the requisitioned premises/ property for an indefinite period of time, under the guise of requisition. If requisitioning of property could legitimately continue for an indefinite period of time, the distinction between requisition and acquisition would tend to become blurred, because in that event for all practical purposes the right to possession and enjoyment of the property which constitutes a major constituent element of the right of ownership would be vested indefinitely without any limitation of time in the requisitioning authority and it would be possible for the authority to substantially take over the property without acquiring it and paying full market value as compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. We must therefore hold that the order of requisition even if it was valid when made, ceased to be valid and effective after the expiration of a reasonable period of time.

1. Shop Nos. 3 to 5 in Natawala Terrace, 53, Gokhale Road, Dadar(W), Mumbai, requisitioned by Government of Maharashtra on 19 June 1948 under Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948. 2. Petitioner (then Prafula Consumers Cooperative Society Ltd.) allotted said premises on 1 March 1949. 3. Various notices issued for rent default and enhanced compensation (1969-1980). 4. Name of petitioner changed to The Sahyadri Central Consumer Coop. Wholesale And Retail Stores Ltd. on 28 January 1976. 5. Landlord requested derequisition on 20 June 1986; Controller refused. 6. Landlord filed Writ Petition No. 1720 of 1986; High Court by judgment dated 2 March 1990 set aside the original requisition order of 19 June 1948. 7. Supreme Court rendered decision in H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 223 SCC 33, holding requisition temporary. 8. Controller of Accommodation by letter dated 12 June 1989 informed allottees to vacate by 26 December 1990. 9. Petitioner did not vacate. 10. Controller of Accommodation passed order dated 26 February 2013 under Section 8C(1) of the Act directing vacation. 11. Petitioner's appeal dismissed by Principal Secretary/Appellate Authority on 9 January 2014. 12. Petitioner filed present Writ Petition No. 73 of 2015 challenging the appellate order.

• Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948: 8C(1)
• Constitution of India: Article 226