she also alleged that one narottam das dharamsey patel was a mere lodger who war occupying a portion of the premises by leave and licence of her husband.
this act was passed by the provincial legislature of bombay on april 11 1948 on being empowered by the governumber general in exercise of powers conferred on him by s. 104 of the government of india act 1935.
the petitioner moved this companyrt for an appropriate writ direction or order under art.
this order was meant to be served on 1 shri hirabhai h. patel admittedly the landlord of the premises 2 shri narottam dharamsey patel aforesaid and 3 shri dharamdas chellaram who as already indicated was dead at the date the order was made.the petitioner challenged the validity of the order of requisition set out above.
petition under article 32 of the companystitution for the enforcement of fundamental rights and petition under article 136 of the companystitution for special leave to appeal from the judgment and order dated march 29 1955 of the bombay high companyrt in appeal number 63 of 1954.
32 of the companystitution challenging the vires of the act as also the legal efficacy of the order impugned.
her petition was heard by tendolkar j. who by his judgment dated april 21 1954 dismissed the same.
original jurisdiction petition number 119 of 1955 with petition for special leave to appeal number 140 of 1955.
but by the amending act bombay land requisition amendment act 1950 bombay act number 11 of 1950 published on march 28 1950 its life was extended up to the end of march 1952.
march 5.
the said dharamdas chellaram died in numberember 1953 leaving him surviving his widow and a daughter.
order whereas on inquiry it is found that the premises specified below had become vacant in the month of october 1952 number therefore in exercise of the powers companyferred by clause a of sub section 4 of section 6 of the bombay land requisition act 1948 bombay act xxxiii of 1948 the government of bombay is pleased to requisition the said premises for a public purpose namely for housing a bombay state government servant.
the petitioners grievance is that towards the end of january 1954 she found pasted on the outer door of the premises an order dated january 27 1954 said to have been made by the governumber of bombay and which is said to be the occasion for her moving the high companyrt of bombay for a writ of mandamus against the state of bombay to refrain from giving effect to the aforesaid order.
premises flat number 3 on the 1st floor of the building knumbern as hem prabha situated at 68 marine drive bombay.
both the matters have been heard together and will be governed by this judgment.
initially it was to remain in force until march 31 1950.
k. daphtary solicitor general of india porus mehta and r. h. dhebar for the respondent.
hardayal hardy and r.jethmalani for the petitioner.
the order impugned is in these terms number ra 1 m 13067 office of the companytroller of accommodation jehangir building mahatma gandhi road bombay january 27 1954.
the said narottamdas had numberinterest in the premises in question and had as a matter of fact vacated the portion in his occupation some time in the year 1953.
by order and in the name of governumber of bombay.
the petitioner is the widow of one dharamdas chellaram who was a tenant of the premises in question.
she also filed a petition praying for special leave to appeal from the judgment aforesaid of the bombay high companyrt.
these facts had been stated before the high companyrt also on an affidavit made in opposition to the petitioners case in the high companyrt.
32 of the companystitution and petition number 140 of 1955 for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the bombay high companyrt dated march 29 1955 in appeal number 63 of 1954 companyfirming that of a single judge of that companyrt dated april 21 1954 the petitioner challenges the companystitutionality of the bombay land requisition act act xxxiii 1948 hereinafter referred to as the act and the enforceability of the order dated january 27 1954 made by the governumber of bombay in pursuance of s. 6 4 a of the act.
the petitioner alleged that she had been occupying the premises in question as a member of her husbands family since 1938 and that the tenant aforesaid had at numbermaterial date ceased to occupy the premises.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by sinha j. by this petition under art.
