Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 190 of 1955, decided on 20th March 1956.

--- Ss. 2 (f) 3, (1) "Public purpose" does not include providing residential accommo dation for Government servants‑Requisition by Controller held ultra vires‑Restrained by writ‑Government of India Act, 1935, S. 223‑A‑Requisition must be for an actual specific purpose‑Sind Crown Servants (House Accommodation) Act (V of 1947)‑Proper Act for securing accommodation for Government servants‑Interpretation involving inconsistency between two Acts to be avoided.

Held, that "Public purpose" as defined in section 2 (f), Sind (Requisition of Land) Act, 1947, does not include pro viding residential accommodation for Government servants. The expression "accommodation for the Central or Provincial Government is not intended to refer to residence of Government employees for which proper provision has been separately made by Sind Crown Servants (House Accommodation) Act (V of 1947) passed earlier.

Therefore, requisition of premises by Controller under section 3 (1) of Sind (Requisition of Land) Act, 1('47, for providing residential accommodation for Government servants was illegal and utlra vires, calling for issue of writ under section 223‑A, Government of India Act, 1935.

Held further, that premises can be requisitioned only if they are in fact required for a specific purpose, not that they might possibly or even probably be so required.

Held also, that the Sind Crown Servants (House Accommodation) Act (V of 1947), which is an Act passed earlier than the Sind (Requisition of Land) Act, 1947, is the. proper Act to be resorted to for securing residential accommodation for Governments servants. This Act provides certain limita tions on the power of Collector (the requisitioning authority) to requisition premises for that purpose. The later Act i.e., the Sind (Requisition of Land) Act, 1947 is free from these limitations. If property were to be requisitioned for Govern ment servants for their residence under the later Act, it would result in inconsistency between the two Acts which, according to well‑recognised rules of interpretation ought to be avoided as far as possible.

Usman Bhai v. The Federation of Pakistan P L D 1956 Sind 25 ref.

The Tattersalls Club v. S. M. Suleman P L D 1956 Sind 49 distinguished.

Mahmud Shere for Petitioner.

H. T. Raymond, Government Pleader for Respondents.

---‑This is a writ petition impeaching an order passed by the Controller under the Sind (Requisition of Land) Act requisitioning certain premises belonging to the petitioner.

The petitioner, Mrs. Dina Sohrab KatraK, is the owner of flats Nos. 8. 9 and 10 on the ground floor of Homi Katrak Chambers, Hoshang Road. Flats Nos. 8 and 9 had beer' leased to the Government of Sind and had been occupied by the office of Conservator of Forests since the 17th of June 1946. In October 1955 on account of the creation of one unit, this office ceased to exist. The lease under which the flats had been occupied had already, according to allegations made in the petition, terminated on the 28th of February 1948. The petitioner wrote to the Conservator of Forests asking him to hand over possession. She received no reply and received instead a notice on the 21st of November 1955 from respondent No. 1, who is the Controller appointed under the Sind (Requisition of Land) Act, requisitioning flats Nos. 8, 9 and 10. According to the allegations in the petition, these flats had been requisitioned for the residence of two subordinates of the Chief Commissioner of Karachi who has been impleaded in this petition as respondent No. 2. On behalf of the respondents, it is conceded that these flats are in fact being occupied by these two sub ordinates of respondent No. 2 and they were so occupied at the time when this petition was filed. It is not conceded, however, that at the time the requisition order was made, the object was to provide residential accommodation for these two officers. The position as explained by learned counsel for the respondents is that the Controller, on coming to know that these flats were no longer required by the Conservator of Forests, requisitioned them on the ground that they were previously occupied by a Government office and may in fact be required for the purposes of the Govern ment. After the requisition, the Controller placed them at the disposal of the Estate Officer of the Karachi Administra tion who is the officer responsible for providing accommoda tion to the various Government offices. The contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that the Sind (Requisi tion of Land) Act does not warrant an order of requisition for the purpose of providing residential accommodation to officers of Government. As it is obvious that the purpose for which the premises are being used is the residence of Government servants, and it is not the case for the respondents that the premises were originally requisitioned for any other specific purpose, we would first determine whether the order could be justified if it was in fact made for the purpose of providing residential accommodation.

The relevant portion of section 3 of the Sind (Requisition of Land) Act under which the order has been made runs :‑

"3. (1) If in the opinion of the Controller it is necessary to requisition any property, movable or immovable, for any public purpose, he may make an order in writing to that effect

Provided that no property used for the purpose of religious worship or for accommodating an educational institution or a dispensary or hospital shall be requisitioned under this section.

(2) An order under subsection (1) shall be served on the owner of the property, and where the order relates to immovable property in occupation of a tenant also on such tenant, by delivering or tendering to such owner or tenant a copy of the order, but where the owner or tenant is not readily traceable or cannot be served without undue delay, or where the ownership is in dispute, the order shall be served by publishing it in the Official Gazette, and, if practicable, by affixing a copy thereof to any conspicuous part of the property to which it relates.

(3) Where the Controller has requisitioned any property under subsection.(1), he may use or deal with the property in such manner as may appear to him to be expedient, and may acquire it by serving on the owner thereof, in the manner specified in subsection (2), a notice stating that he has decided to acquire it in pursuance of this section.

(4) Where a notice of acquisition is served on the owner of the property or published in the Official Gazette under subsection (2), then at the beginning of the day on which the notice is so served or published, the property shall vest in the Provincial Government free from any mortgage, lease, lien or other similar encumbrance, and the period of requisition thereof shall end.".

"Public purpose" is defined thus in section 2 (f) of the Act . ‑‑‑

"Public purpose" means any purpose connected with the security of accommodation for the Constituent Assembly and the Central Government of Pakistan or the Provincial Government.

The question for consideration is whether "accommodation for the Central Government of Pakistan or the Provincial Government" includes providing of residence for an employee of any of the Governments. We are of the opinion that in their ordinary and natural sense these words do not convey the idea of providing residential accommodation to Government servants. These words would connote the providing of a place connected with the discharge of the functions of a Government. But any doubt on the question is set at rest when one considers the provisions of the earlier Sind Act, i.e., the Sind Crown Servants (House Accommo dation) Act, V of 1947. This Act which was passed on the 25th March 1947 (the Sind (Requisition of Land) Act having been passed on the 2nd of August 1947) enables the Government to secure accommodation for its servants and prescribes the limitations to which the power of the Govern ment is subject. It is convenient to quote here some of the provisions of that Act

Preamble :‑Whereas it is expedient to make provision for the securing of house accommodation for persons serving in connection with the affairs of the Province of Sind and persons holding certain offices ; It is hereby enacted as follows :‑ .

Section 3.‑‑(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2), every house situate in a local area to which this Act applies shall be liable to appropriation by the Provincial Government on a lease in the manner and subject to the conditions herein after provided.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall apply to‑‑

(a) a house occupied or which, in the opinion of the Collector, is intended to be occupied by the owner within a reasonable time of the house becoming available for occupation ;

(b) a house occupied by a tenant for his own use continuously from the 1st day of December 1941, up to the date on which an application for the appropriation of such house is made under subsection (1) of section 4.

Section 4.‑(1) Where‑

(a) a Crown servant who is stationed in a local area to which this Act applies makes an application in writing to the Collector that he is unable to secure accommodation in such area for himself on reasonable terms by private agreement, and that no suitable house or quarter belonging to the Crown is available for his occupation, and the Collector is satisfied on enquiry of the truth of the facts so stated, or

(b) the Collector is satisfied on an enquiry that there is not in such local area sufficient and assured supply of houses available at reasonable rates of rent by private agreement to meet the requirements of Crown servants whose accommodation in such local area is in his opinion necessary or expedient, the Collector may, with a view to enforcing the liability under section 3 serve a notice on the owner of any house which appears to him to be suitable for occupation by a Crown servant, requiring the owner to permit the house to be inspected by such person, and on such date, not being less than three clear days from the service of the notice, and at such time between sunrise and sunset, as may be specified in the notice.

(2) On the date and at the time so specified the owner shall be bound to afford all reasonable facilities to the person specified in the notice for the purpose of the inspection of the house, and if he refuses or neglects to do so, such person may, subject to any rules made under this Act, enter on the premises and do all such things as may be reasonably necessary for the said purpose.

Section 5.‑(1). If, on the report of such person as aforesaid, the Collector is satisfied that the house is suitable for occupation by a Crown servant, he may by notice‑

(a) require the owner to execute a lease of the house to the Provincial Government ;

(b) require the existing occupier, if any, to vacate the house ; and

(c) require the owner to execute within such time as may be specified in the notice such repairs as may, in the . opinion of the Collector, be necessary for the purpose of putting the house into a state of reasonable repair.

(2) A lease executed under subsection (1) shall be operative for the period during which this Act is in force in the local area in which the house to be let is situate, but, if the owner so requires, the Provincial Government shall be bound to execute the lease for such period not exceeding five years, as the owner may specify.

(3) The following shall be deemed to be conditions of every lease executed under subsection (1), namely :‑

(a) that the rent for the house shall be fixed and be payable in accordance with the provisions of the Sind Rent Restriction Act, 1947 ;

(b) that the house shall, on the expiration of the lease, be re‑delivered to the owner in a state of reasonable repair ; and

(c) that the grounds and the garden, if any, appertaining to the house shall be maintained in the condition in which they were at the time at which the lease is executed

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be deemed to affect the right of the Provincial Government to avoid the lease in any such event as‑ is specified in clause (e) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Section 6.‑(1) The owner of any house in respect of which a lease has been executed under section 5 may make an application to the Collector that the house is reasonably and in good faith required by him for his own occupation.

(2) The Collector may within thirty days of the receipt of the application and after making such enquiry as he deems fit either grant or dismiss the application : Provided that where the Collector has not made any order within thirty days of the receipt of the application, the application shall be deemed to have been granted.

(3) The Provincial Government shall‑

(a) if the application is, granted, within thirty days of the order granting the application,

(b) if the application is deemed to be granted, within sixty days of the date of the application,

deliver vacant possession of the house to the owner and lease executed under section 5 in respect of such house shall be deemed to be cancelled with effect from the date on which such possession is delivered.

(4) Where an owner has received vacant possession of a house under subsection (3) and fails to occupy the house within thirty days of the receipt of such possession, the Collector may, after notice in writing, re‑enter on the premises, dispossess the owner or other person occupying the house and on such dispossession the lease executed under section 5 and cancelled under subsection (3) shall revive.

It will be observed that this Act does not allow a house to be taken over if the owner is himself occupying it or if the owner may stand in need of occupying within a reasonable time (and it is not to the taken over even if the Government servant is unable to secure accommo dation on reasonable terms and there is no suitable house or quarter belonging to the Crown available for his accommo dation) and it is to be taken over only after the Collector is satisfied that there is no sufficient supply of houses available and after there has been a report by a person appointed by the Collector. The owner has also the right to insist on the execution of a lease for a period not exceeding five years.

These provisions may be contrasted with section 3 of the Sind (Requisition of Land) Act which we have already quoted above. The power of requisition under the Sind (Requisition of Land) Act is subject neither to the limitations imposed by the earlier Act nor to the procedure provided by that Act, and it carries with it also a power of acquisition.

It should be clear that when the Legislature enacted the earlier Act, it was of the opinion that for the purpose of pro viding accommodation to Government servants, houses which were occupied by the owners or which may be required by the owners within a reasonable time should not be taken over at all even though the Government servant was unable to secure accommodation at reasonable rates and that if, after the ‑ order of requisition, they were at any time required by the owners, their possession may be returned to them. To protect the owners it directed the Collector to satisfy himself that in fact accommodation was not available. It directed also the execution of a deed and allowed the owner to insist upon a term of years not exceeding five. The Legislature regarded the requisition of property for the residence of a Government servant as a rather extreme measure and, therefore, placed limitations on the exercise of that power. Now, if we were to accept the interpretation put by the respondents and to hold that the providing of residential accommodation is a "Public purpose" that would amount to saying that in respect of such accommodation the Legislature had, when it enacted the later Act, changed its view and it permitted henceforward the requisition of property for this purpose even though the owner was occupying it or needed it for his own occupation and removed all other limitations on the power of requisition. On such interpretation, the later Act would be inconsistent with the earlier Act in this respect. The claim of Government servants to residential accommodation is at its best when no accommodation is available to them at reasonable rates. Yet it will be observed that in the earlier Act even in cases where no other accommodation was on reasonable terms available to Government servants, the Legislature had disallowed the taking over of premises which were either in the occupation of, or which might be needed by, the owners. If it was really intended that the earlier Act should in this respect be repealed, we would expect an express mention of it, for the matter must be present to the mind of the Legislature. There should in any case be some indication that there was an intention of overriding the provisions of the earlier Act relating to residential accommodation. It is a well‑recognised rule of interpretation that statutes are to be interpreted as far as possible consistently with each other. In fact, if we read the two Acts side by side, little doubt would be left that they deal with two separate fields. The expression "accommodation for the Central or Provincial Government" is not, intended to refer to residence of Government employees for which a proper provision has separately been made.

This would be the position if the flats were requisitioned for residence of the employees. If, on the other hand, the flats were requisitioned, as alleged by learned counsel for the respondents, because they were previously occupied by an office and the Controller was of the opinion that they should be kept under control so as to be available in case they are needed, the position would not improve. It is only if, in the opinion of the Controller, the premises are in fact required for a specific purpose that they can be requisitioned B and not if they may possibly or even probably be required. The Controller must have himself applied his mind and reached a conclusion on a consideration of the requirements as to accommodation of the Government that the premises were required for such accommodation before he could proceed to make an order of requisition.

The Single Bench judgments, one by Muhammad Bakhsh, J. in Usman Bhai v. The Federation of Pakistan (P L D 1956 Sind 25) in favour of the petitioner and one by Lari, J. in The Tattersalls Club v. S. M. Suleman (P L D 1956 Sind 49) against the petitioner, have been cited before us. Lari, J. has held that "Central Government" means the entire body of officers who are charged with the duty of governing the country. But this definition cannot lead to the conclusion that accommodation for the private residence of officers is accommodation for the Central Government. When it is said that Central Govern ment means the officers of the Government, the reference is to the functions which the officers discharge and not to their private capacities or private needs.

We hold that the order for requisition was illegal and ultra vires. We direct the respondents to refrain from giving effect to the order of requisition directly or indirectly. The petitioner shall have the costs from the respondents.

K. M. A. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.