Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, claiming to be owners of a flat in Mumbai, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to direct the respondents to hand over possession of the flat. The flat had been requisitioned prior to 1962 under the Bombay Land Acquisition Act, 1948 for the benefit of the Commissioner of Police (Respondent No.4). The petitioners issued a notice in 1997 calling for derequisition, and after non-compliance, filed Writ Petition No.14 of 1998, which was disposed of with a direction to hand over possession. That order was challenged in the Supreme Court, which upheld the constitutional validity of an amending Act. The present petition was filed in 2010, seeking similar relief. The court noted that the petitioners had not challenged the allotment of the flat to Respondent No.5, who was in possession, and that there was a delay of over a decade. The court also observed that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of a suit, which was already pending. The court held that the petition suffered from laches and that the existence of an alternative remedy was a ground to decline writ jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Laches - Writ of Certiorari - Petitioners sought possession of a flat requisitioned under the Bombay Land Acquisition Act, 1948 - The court held that the petition suffered from laches as the petitioners did not challenge the allotment of the flat to Respondent No.5 for over a decade - Held that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches (Paras 7-9). B) Constitutional Law - Alternative Remedy - Writ of Certiorari - Petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of a suit for possession - The court noted that the petitioners had already filed a suit which was pending - Held that the existence of an alternative remedy is a ground to decline the writ jurisdiction (Paras 10-11). C) Property Law - Requisition - Derequisition - Bombay Land Acquisition Act, 1948 - The flat was requisitioned prior to 1962 for police purposes - The Supreme Court in H.D. Vora v. State of Maharashtra held that requisition cannot continue indefinitely - However, the petitioners' claim for derequisition was not pursued diligently - Held that the petition was not maintainable (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a writ of certiorari directing the respondents to hand over possession of the requisitioned flat, given the delay and the existence of an alternative remedy.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed.
Law Points
- Laches
- Alternative remedy
- Writ of Certiorari
- Requisition
- Bombay Land Acquisition Act 1948
- Possession
