(1) If in the opinion of the 1[State] Government it is necessary or expedient so to do, the 1[State] Government may by order in writing requisition any land for 2[any public purpose] :
Provided that, no building or part thereof wherein the owner, the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, has actually resided for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the order shall be requisitioned under this section.
(2) Where any building or part thereof is to be requisitioned under sub-section (1) the 1[State] Government shall make such inquiry as it deems fit and make a declaration in the order of requisition that the owner, the landlord or the tenant, as the case may be, has not actually resided therein for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the order and such declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the owner, landlord or tenant has not so resided.
NOTES
Public purpose- Premises which have been allowed to continue in unauthorized occupation for so long a period cannot be said to be required by the State for a public purpose and the continued requisition thereof must be brought to an end.- Kishore Karamsey & Co. v. D. M. Torgal, 1984 Mah. L.J. 625.
Business Premises- The State Government has power to requisition all premises including business premises, which do not fall within the proviso to that section. The business premises are subject to requisition.- Ruston Dinshaw v. State, ILR 1954 Bom. 161: AIR 1953 Bom. 271:56 Bom. L.R. 268.
Order of requisition whether quasi-judicial or administrative.- There is no obligation cast upon State Government to hold inquiry under section 5(2) in a judicial manner. The nature, extend and the scope of the inquiry under sub-section (2) is to be determined by the Government. There is no statutory requirement that Government should observe the rules of natural justice in holding such an inquiry. Therefore an order made under section 5(1) is an administrative order and no writ of certiorari can lie to correct that order. - Alarkhia Somajee v. Collector of Nasik, ILR 1952 Bom. 79 : AIR 1951 Bom. 131 : 53 Bom. L.R. 369.
No distinction between residential and non-residential building.- Section 5(2) does not make any difference between residential and non residential building. If the premises are requisitioned the Government has to follow the procedure laid down in section 5(2) of the Act with regard to holding of an enquiry and making declaration. If the Government fails to observe the procedure then the exercise of power to requisition is not proper and the order of the requisition is bad.- Maneklal Amratlal v. Collector, Ahmedabad, ILR 1954 Bom. 473 : AIR 1954 Bom. 235 : 55 Bom. L. R. 143.
Non-use of public purpose.- If the premises are not used for any public purpose Government is under obligation to release the premises from requisition.- Rangubai Pandurang Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, 1969 Mah. L.J. 880 : 1969 Bom. L.R. 624.
__________________
1. These words were substituted for the words "purpose of the State or any other public purpose" by the Bombay Adaptation of Laws (State and Concurrent Subjects) Order, 1956.