LADY DINBAI PETIT Vs. M S NORONHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Coyajee. The material relevant facts are these.

(2.) Under a trust deed dated January 17, 1931, the petitioners, who are trustees, held vacant land admeasuring about 85,000 square yards in the Tardeo locality in Bombay. In January, 1942, the Controller of Supplies asked for the use of the land for storage of motor vehicles. In that correspondence, on March 14, 1942, it was stated that the trustees should let the land to the Controller of Supplies. The rent was to be twelve annas per square yard per annum and the period of lease was twelve months with an option for a renewal for a further period as may be necessary. The Deputy Controller by his said letter asked the appellants to send the: draft terms and conditions of the proposed lease. In anticipation of the execution of the lease the land was occupied by the Controller of Supplies on March 24, 1942. On March 31, 1942, the Secretary to the Government of Bombay, Revenue Department, by order of the Governor of Bombay sent a memorandum to the Collector of Bombay. In that memorandum it was stated that the Government had decided that the old Petit Mills site at Tardeo should be requisitioned immediately under Rule 79 of the Defence of India Rules and the Collector was requested to lease temporarily to the Supply Department so much of the land as was required by that department. In para 2 of the memorandum it was stated that the Government had also decided that proceedings for the acquisition of the said land under the Land Acquisition Act should be started simultaneously and the Collector was requested to send to Government the requisite proposals for its acquisition. Rule 79 of the Defence of India Rules there referred to was the old rule in place of which the present Rule 75A is substituted.

(3.) On receipt of this memorandum the Collector issued an order of requisition on the appellants. That is dated April 9, 1942. By their reply the executors of the late Sir Dinshaw Petit pointed out that under the orders of the Government of India the property had been given on lease and the necessary agreement had been concluded. They therefore expressed their inability to do anything under the order of the Collector. On May 4, 1942, the appellants attorneys sent a draft of the agreement and on May 23, 1942, the Assistant Controller of Supplies intimated that the draft had been forwarded to the Government Solicitor for his approval and remarks. Nothing was done by any Government department for a long time, in spite of reminders sent by the appellants. On August 4, 1942, the Collector, purporting to act under the memorandum which he had received, called upon the trustees to put in their claim for rent or compensation in respect of the premises requisitioned. On October 30, 1942, an appointment for a joint survey was suggested. While the matters were at this stage, the Collector of Bombay gave a notice dated October 23, 1942, for acquisition of the property under Rule 75A of the Defence of India Rules. On December 3, 1942, the Controller of Supplies wrote to the appellants attorneys that the Government of India had concluded an arrangement with the Government of Bombay under which the latter were to lease to the Supply Department such portion of the requisitioned property as was required by the Supply Department for the duration of the war or for a shorter period if necessary, on terms to be settled between the Controller of Supplies and the Government of Bombay. Nothing further was done in the matter.