On December 18, 1964 the District Magistrate Rohtak passed an order under section 2 of the Act requiring Khan Chand respondent to place the above truck at the disposal of the Executive Engineer Rohtak because the District Magistrate was of the view that trucks were necessary to carry road material for famine work.
It was also mentioned that companypensation for the use of the truck would be paid at the rate fixed by the Government.
From the judgment and order dated the 24th March, 1966 of the Punjab High Court in C.W. No.
627 to 629 of 1965 C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
The Judgment of A. N. Ray, C.J., H. R. Khanna, A. Alagiriswami and P. N. Bhagwati, JJ was delivered by Khanna, K. K. Mathew, J gave a dissenting Opinion.
The truck was thereafter taken into possession by the District Magistrate or December 19, 1964.
1751 1753 of 1967.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The respondent thereupon filed petition under article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court challenging the validity of the above order of the District Magistrate.
Prayer was also made to declare the, provisions of the Act to be unconstitutional The petition was resisted by the State of Punjab and the District Magistrate of Rohtak, who are the appellants before us, and the affidavit of the District Magistrate was filed in opposition to the petition.
The petition was first posted for hearing before a single Judge who referred it to a Division Bench.
From the judgment and order dated the 24th March, 1966 of the Punjab High Court in C.W. Nos.
1730 of 1967.
1730 is the owner of Tata Mercedes Benze truck No.
KHANNA, J. This judgment would dispose of civil appeals No.
The respondent in civil appeal No.
1730 and 1751, 1752 and 1753 of 1967 which have been filed on certificate by the State of Punjab against a Full Bench judgment of the Punjab High Court whereby section 2 of the East Punjab Movable Property Requisitioning Act, 1947 East Punjab Act XV of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act was struck down on the ground of being violative article 14 of the Constitution.
26 of 1965 and Civil Appeals Nos.
Shaukat Hussain, for the respondent.
