Bombay High Court

Mohammad Ali Nawabsaheb Wadwan vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 23 October, 2015

Bench: A.S. Oka

                                             1                               wp264

    ssp

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                     
                    CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
                     WRIT PETITION NO.264 OF 2009
                 




                                             
       Dr.Mohammad Ali Nawabsaheb Wadwan
       (since deceased through LRs.)        ...Petitioners  
       vs.
       The State of Maharashtra 




                                            
       and others                           ...Respondents


       Dr.Ramdas P. Sabban for the Petitioners 
       Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 4




                                   
       Mr.Nitin P. Deshpande for respondent Nos.5 and 6
       Mr.Vijay Killedar a/w Siddharth Gadhvi for 
                              
       respondent No.7. 

       CORAM : A.S.OKA & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED: AUGUST 13, 2015 DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED:OCTOBER 23,2015

JUDGMENT : (PER A.S.OKA,J.)

1 By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to

acquire the land of the petitioners more particularly described in paragraph 2 of the petition. The prayer is either for issuing the aforesaid direction or for the restoration of the

vacant and peaceful possession of the land described in paragraph 2 of the petition (for short `the said land') to the petitioners within the time fixed by this Court. The second substantive prayer is for directing the respondents to decide the representations dated 22nd January 2008 and 13th February 2008. The third prayer is for setting aside the notice dated 18th October 2007 issued by

2 wp264

the State Government under sub section (1) of section 41 of the Maharashtra Housing and Area

Development Act, 1976 (for short `the MHADA Act'). By the said notice published in official Gazette,

the owners of the said land were called upon to show cause within a period of 30 days from the date of the publication of the said notice in the official

Gazette as to why the said land should not be acquired for the purpose of construction of a water tank. The first to fourth respondents are the State

of Maharashtra and its officers. The sixth

respondent is the Chief Executive Officer of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

(For short "MHADA") established under section 3 of the MHADA Act. The fifth respondent is the Chief Officer of the Pune Regional Board constituted under

the section 18 of the MHADA Act.

2 The case made out in the petition is that by the order dated 28th May 1986 (Exhibit G) passed by

the District Collector in exercise of powers under 5 (1) of the Bombay Requisition Act,1948 (for short `the Requisition Act'), the requisition of the said land was made for construction of a water reservoir

at Solapur which is a part of twin Solapur Project No.1. According to the case of the petitioners, the said land could have continued under the requisition for a maximum period of 17 years as per the provisions of the section 9 of the Land Requisition Act. As the land was not restored on expiry of the period of 17 years which ended on 28 th May 2003, the petitioners requested the respondents to restore the

3 wp264

possession of the said land. The case made out in the petition is that as no order was passed on the

application/representation made by the petitioners, earlier Writ Petition No.7487 of 2003 was filed in

this Court. By order dated 15th April 2004, a Division Bench disposed of the said Writ Petition by directing the respondents to decide the

representation within a period of three months from the date of order. On the basis of the said order, the Principal Secretary of the Housing Department

called a meeting on 11th March 2005 when the Advocate

for the petitioners was heard. The Secretary directed that an action of acquisition of the said

land under section 41 of the MHADA Act be shall commence and shall be completed within a period of three months.

3 The petitioners are relying upon the

notification dated 24th November 2005 issued by the State Government. The said notification records

that by earlier notification dated 29th September 1981, the MHADA was appointed as the Special Planning Authority for the area of 293 Hectares known as SPA-I. The said notification records that

MHADA was appointed as the Special Planning Authority also for the housing scheme for Bidi workers for the area known as SPA-II. It records that both the areas were outside the limits of the Solapur Municipal Corporation. Subsequently, the limits of Solapur Municipal Corporation were extended and both the areas were included in the Municipal Corporation limits. By the said

4 wp264

notification, in exercise of powers conferred by section 160 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town

Planning Act, 1966 the State Government declared that the MHADA ceased to be the Special Planning

Authority for both the said areas and from 24 th November 2005, the Solapur Municipal Corporation shall be the Planning Authority for both the areas.

4 In view of the aforesaid notification, the petitioners made a representation dated 22nd January

2008 and 13th February 2008 through their Advocate

requesting the respondents either to acquire the said land under the provisions of the Land

Acquisition Act,1894 (for short `the Land Acquisition Act') or to restore the vacant possession of the said land to the petitioners. The

petitioners are relying upon the order dated 10 th July 2000 passed in the Writ Petition No.3215 of

2000 which according to the case of the petitioners was passed in a similar matter. The contention

raised in the petition is that after 24 th November 2005, the MHADA cannot discharge functions as the Special Planning Authority in respect of the said land and, therefore, the notification dated 18 th

October 2007 issued under sub-section (1) of section 41 of the MHADA Act is illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.

5 The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the requisition of the said land under order dated 28th May 1986 has continued beyond the statutory period and for an unreasonably long

5 wp264

time. He pointed out that as the MHADA has ceased to be the Special Planning Authority for the concerned

area with effect from 24th November 2005, the notification dated 18th October 2007 issued by the

State Government under sub-section (1) of section 41 of the MHADA Act is rendered illegal. He relied upon various decisions of the Apex Court and this

Court including the decision in the case of H.D.Vora Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 1 and Grahak Sanstha Manch and others vs. State of Maharashtra2.

He urged that either the said land should be

acquired or the same should be restored to the Petitioners.

6 The learned counsel appearing for the fifth and sixth respondents relied upon the affidavit in reply

of Shri Milind Mohan Atakale, the Deputy Engineer, Solapur Sub Division, Pune Housing and Area

Development Board, Solapur. The submission is that though with effect from 24th November 2005, the

MHADA may not be the Special Planning Authority for any area forming part of the jurisdiction of the Solapur Municipal Corporation, it is not precluded from exercising the powers under section 41 of the

MHADA Act to acquire lands. He urged that notice dated 18th October 2007 cannot be set aside. He pointed out that the water tank constructed by the MHADA on the said land has been handed over to the Solapur Municipal Corporation from 1st January 1993. He would therefore urge that no fault can be found

1 (1984) 2 SCC 337 2 (1994) 4 SCC 192

6 wp264

with the proceedings under sub-section (1) of section 41 of the MHADA Act. The learned AGP

supported the submissions made by the learned counsel for the fifth and sixth respondents. The

learned counsel for the Solapur Municipal Corporation pointed out that no order can be passed affecting the water tank/reservoir which is in

existence for last several years on the said land.

7 We have given careful considerations to the

submissions. Firstly, we deal with the issue of the

requisition of the said land under the Requisition Act by the order dated 28th May 1986. It will be

necessary to make a reference to section 9 of the Requisition Act. Clause (a) of sub-section (1A) of section 9 provides that any land requisitioned or

continued to be subject of requisition under the Requisition Act before the commencement of the

Bombay Land Requisition (Amendment) Act,1973 shall be released from requisition by the State Government

on or before the expiry of period of 19 years from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act. Clause (b) of sub-section 1A of section 9 provides that any land requisitioned under the Requisition

Act after the commencement of the Bombay Land Requisition (Amendment), Act,1973 shall be released from requisition on or before the expiry of period of 19 years from the date on which the possession of the land was surrendered or taken over by the State Government.


     8        Admittedly,   the   process   of   the   compulsory 



                                                          7                              wp264

acquisition of the said land is not yet completed and, therefore, from 28th May 1986 till today i.e for

a period of more than 29 years and 4 months, the said land continues to be under requisition. It

ought to have been released from requisition on or before 28th May 2005 in terms of clause (b) of sub- section 1A of section 9. On this aspect, it will be

necessary to make a reference to the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Grahak Sanstha Manch and others. We must note here

that in the case of Grahak Sanstha Manch and others,

the Apex Court considered its earlier decision in the case of H.D.Vora Vs. State of Maharashtra and

others. In paragraph No.6 of the decision in the case of H.D.Vora, the Apex Court held thus:

"But we find that there is also another ground of challenge urged on behalf of Respondent 3 and that is a very

formidable ground to which there is no answer. The argument urged under this ground of challenge was that an order of requisition is by its very nature temporary in character and

it cannot endure for an indefinite period of time and the order of requisition in the present case therefore ceased to be valid and effective after the expiration of a reasonable

period of time and that it could not, under any circumstances, continue for a period of about 30 years and hence it was liable to be quashed and set aside or in any event the State Government was bound to revoke the same and to derequisition the flat. This contention has, in our opinion, great force and must be sustained. There is a basic and fundamental distinction recognized by law between requisition and acquisition. The Constitution itself in Entry 42 of List III of the Seventh Schedule makes a distinction

8 wp264

between acquisition and requisitioning of property. The original Article 31 clause (2) of the Constitution also

recognized this distinction between compulsory acquisition and requisitioning of property. The two concepts, one of

requisition and the other of acquisition are totally distinct and independent. Acquisition means the acquiring of the entire title of the expropriated owner whatever the nature and extent

of that title may be. The entire bundle of rights which was vested in the original holder passes on acquisition to the acquirer leaving nothing to the former. Vide: Observations of Mukherjee, J., in Chiranjit Lal case [Chiranjit Lal v.Union of India, AIR 1951 SC

41 : 1950 SCR 869] . The concept of acquisition has an air of

permanence and finality in that there is transference of the title of the original holder to the acquiring authority. But

the concept of requisition involves merely taking of "domain or control over property without acquiring rights of ownership" and must by its very nature be of temporary duration. 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 do not think that the Government can under the guise of requisition continued for an indefinite period of time, in substance acquire the property, because that would be a fraud on the power conferred on the Government. If the Government wants to take over the property for an indefinite period of time, the Government must acquire the

9 wp264

property but it cannot use the power of requisition for achieving that object. The power of requisition is exercisable

by the Government only for a public purpose which is of a transitory character. If the public purpose for which the

premises are required is of a perennial or permanent character from the very inception, no order can be passed requisitioning the premises and in such a case the order of requisition, if

passed, would be a fraud upon the statute, for the Government would be requisitioning the premises when really speaking they want the premises for acquisition, the object of taking the

premises being not transitory but permanent in character. Where the purpose for which the premises are required is of

such a character that from the very inception it can never be served by requisitioning the premises but can be achieved only

by acquiring the property which would be the case where the purpose is of a permanent character or likely to subsist for an indefinite period of time, the Government may acquire the premises but it certainly cannot requisition the premises and

continue the requisitioning indefinitely. Here in the present

case the order of requisition was made as far back as April 9, 1951 and even if it was made for housing a homeless person and the appellant at that time fell within the

category of homeless person, it cannot be allowed to continue for such an inordinately long period as thirty years. 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. It is not necessary for us to decide what period of time may be regarded as reasonable for the continuance of an order of requisition in a given case, because ultimately the answer to this question must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case but there can be no doubt that whatever be the public purpose for which an order of requisition is made, the period of time for which the order of requisition

10 wp264

may be continued cannot be an unreasonably long period such as thirty years. The High Court was, therefore, in any view of the

matter, right in holding that in the circumstances the order of requisition could not survive any longer and the State

Government was bound to revoke the order of requisition and derequisition the flat and to take steps to evict the appellant from the flat and to hand over vacant possession of it to

Respondent 3."

(emphasis added)

9 In paragraphs 16 and 17 of the decision in the case of Grahak Sanstha Manch, the Apex Court held

thus :

"16. We find ourselves in agreement with the view taken in the cases of Collector of Akola[(1968) 1 SCR 401 : AIR 1968 SC 244] and Jiwani Kumar Paraki [Jiwani Kumar Paraki v. First Land

Acquisition Collector, (1984) 4 SCC 612] that the purpose of a

requisition order may be permanent. But that is not to say that an order of requisitioning can be continued indefinitely or for a period of time longer than that which is, in the facts and

circumstances of the particular case, reasonable. We note and approve in this regard, as did this Court in Jiwani Kumar Paraki case [Jiwani Kumar Paraki v. First Land Acquisition Collector, (1984) 4 SCC 612] , the observations of the Nagpur High Court in

the case of Mangilal Karwa v. State of M.P. [ILR 1955 Nag 34 : AIR 1955 Nag 153] which have been reproduced above. That the concept of requisitioning is temporary is also indicated by the Law Commission in its Tenth Report and, as pointed out earlier, by the terms of the said Act itself, as it originally stood and as amended from time to time. There is no contradiction in concluding that while a requisition order can be issued for a permanent public purpose, it cannot be continued indefinitely. Requisitioning might have to be resorted to for a

11 wp264

permanent public purpose, to give an example, to tide over the period of time required for making permanent premises available

for it. The concepts of acquisition and requisition are altogether different as are the consequences that flow

therefrom. A landlord cannot, in effect and substance, be deprived of his rights and title to property without being paid due compensation, and this is the effect of prolonged

requisitioning. Requisitioning may be continued only for a reasonable period; what that period should be would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it would

ordinarily, be for the Government to decide.

17. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the decision in H.D.

Vora case [(1984) 2 SCC 337] does not require reconsideration. We, however, do not approve the observations therein that

requisition orders under the said Act cannot be made for a permanent purpose. We make it clear that the said decision does not lay down, as has been argued, a period of 30 years as the

outer limit for which a requisition order may continue. The period of 30 years was mentioned in the decision only in the context of

the date of the requisition order there concerned. An order of requisition can continue for a reasonable period of time and it was held, as we hold, that the continuance of an order of

requisition for as long as 30 years was unreasonable.

(emphasis added)

10 Thus, the law laid down by the Apex Court is that the requisition can be continued only for a reasonable period.

11 In the present case, the State was aware of this position and, therefore, by a notice dated 18 th October 2007, an attempt was made to initiate acquisition proceedings under the section 41 of the

12 wp264

MHADA Act for compulsory acquisition. However, the acquisition proceedings were not taken to its

logical conclusion. Thus, the order of acquisition has continued for a period of 29 years and 4 months.

Looking at the facts of the case, from any angle, the said period of 29 years and 4 months will have to be held as unreasonable especially in view of the

fact that an attempt was made to initiate acquisition proceedings in the year 2007. Therefore, the continuation of requisition under the

Requisition Act stands vitiated.

12 The second issue is regarding the legality and

validity of the action initiated under sub-section (1) of section 41 of the MHADA Act. It is not in dispute that the said land was a part of the land

notified on 29th September 1981 by the State Government by which the MHADA was constituted as the

Special Planning Authority. By the notification dated 24th February 2005, the MHADA ceased to be the

Special Planning Authority for the said area from the date of the said notification. It is not in dispute that the MHADA has constructed a water reservoir on the said land and that the water

reservoir has been handed over to the Solapur Municipal Corporation (7th respondent). The affidavit of Shri Milind filed on behalf of the MHADA discloses that from 1st January 1993, the water reservoir is being maintained by the Solapur Municipal Corporation.


     13       Now   the   question   is   whether   the   acquisition 



                                             13                              wp264

     initiated   under   sub-section   (1)   of   section   41     of

the MHADA Act can continue. Under sub-section (1)

of section 41, on an application made by the MHADA, if it appears to the State Government that in order

to enable the MHADA to discharge any of its functions or to exercise any of its power or to carry out any of its proposals, plans or projects,

it is necessary that any land should be acquired, the State Government may acquire such land by publishing a notification. Sub-section (2) provides

that acquisition of any land for any purpose

mentioned in sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be a public purpose. Sub-section (1) provides that

before publishing a notification contemplated by sub-section (1) of section 41, the owner or person interested is required to be served with the show

cause notice calling upon him to show cause as to why the land should not be acquired. After

considering the reply to the show cause notice, the State Government is required to pass such order as

it deems fit. The vesting is complete only when a notification contemplated by sub-section (1) of section 41 is published in the Official Gazette.

14 We have carefully perused the notice dated 18th October 2007. It records that there is a proposal to acquire the said land and by the said notice, objections to the proposal were called for. Thus,it is a notice of the proposed acquisition calling upon the owners to submit objections within thirty days. From the affidavit in reply of the fifth and sixth respondents, we find that it is not even the case

14 wp264

made out that a notification as contemplated by sub- section (1) of section 41 was published in Official

Gazette after the State Government passed an order after taking into consideration the objections

received. Thus, almost for a period of 8 years, no further steps have been taken on the basis of the said notification dated 18th October 2007. Though

the affidavit of the fifth and sixth respondents is filed on 25th February 2009, even thereafter, no further steps have been taken. The only interim

order passed by this Court on 16 th April 2009 is for

restraining the respondents from developing the said land, from putting up any structure thereon and

from creating any third party rights in the said land. However, a liberty was granted to the respondents to acquire the said land if needed for

the public purpose under the Land Acquisition Act,1894. As of today, since the MHADA has ceased

to be the Special Planning Authority for the area in which the said land is situated and as the water

tank/reservoir constructed by the MHADA on the said land has been handed over to the Solapur Municipal Corporation, it cannot be said that the MHADA requires the said land for discharge of any of its

functions or to exercise any of its powers or to carry out any of its proposals, plans or projects. The MHADA ceased to be the Special Planning Authority for the area concerned on the basis of the notification dated 24th November 2005. Before issuing the notice dated 18th October 2007, this aspect ought to have been considered. Perhaps, the said notice was issued on the basis of the direction

15 wp264

issued by the Secretary of the Housing Department in the meeting held on 11th March 2005. Hence, the

acquisition of the said land cannot be made now on the basis of the notice dated 18th October 2007.

15 As we have held that the requisition of the said land under the Requisition Act stands vitiated,

it follows that the possession of the said land will have to be restored to the petitioners. However, from the prayer clause (a) of this Petition , we

find that the petitioners have no objection if the

said land is acquired. Moreover, we cannot ignore that there is a water tank/reservoir constructed on

the said land. Therefore, a reasonable time will have to be granted to the Solapur Municipal Corporation and the State Government to initiate and

complete the acquisition proceedings in respect of the said land. Considering the fact that the water

tank/reservoir is in existence on the said land, we propose to grant time of two years to the Solapur

Municipal Corporation. Hence, Writ petition must succeed.

16 Hence, we pass the following order:

(I) We declare that the continuation of the requisition of the said land bearing Survey No.305/3A admeasuring 896 sq meters situated at Solapur under the order dated 28 th May 1986 stands vitiated. Accordingly, the order dated 28th May 1986 (Exhibit G to the petition) stands set aside;

                                                16                              wp264

          (II)          We restrain the respondent Nos.1 to 6 from

initiating any further proceedings on the basis

of the notice dated 18th October 2007 (Exhibit D to the petition);

(III) However, we make it clear that this Judgment and order will not preclude the Solapur Municipal Corporation from initiating

proceedings for the acquisition of the aforesaid land under the relevant law relating to the compulsory acquisition;

(IV) To enable the Municipal Corporation to

initiate the proceedings for acquisition of the said land by making necessary application to

the District Collector and to complete the same, we grant time of two years from today to the Solapur Municipal Corporation to restore

the possession of the said land to the petitioners. If the acquisition is completed

within the stipulated period of two years, the petitioners will not be entitled to the

restoration of the possession of the said land ;

(V) If such application for initiating the acquisition proceedings is made by the Solapur

Municipal Corporation to the collector within a period of three months from today, the State Government shall ensure that the proceedings are initiated immediately and concluded within a period of two years from today provided the Solapur Municipal Corporation deposits the requisite amounts as and when called upon by the Government;

                                             17                              wp264

          (VI)         If within a period of two years from today,

acquisition proceedings are not completed in

accordance with the law, the Solapur Municipal Corporation shall forthwith put the petitioners

in possession of the said land after restoring it to its original condition;