1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and this is a petition of an exceptional nature. Being a petition of an exceptional nature instead of accepting it and issuing a rule I directed that notice be issued to the respondents before any further order was passed by me.
2. The petition arises in the following circumstances. The petitioner claims that he is an allottee under the Bombay Land Requisition Act and the premises in question were allotted to him as he was the first informant in connection with a suppressed vacancy.
The correspondence annexed to the petition shows that in the letter of 21-1-1955 the Accommodation Officer said and stated that they had come to the conclusion that there was a suppressed vacancy. Thereafter on the 11th of March he was informed that the assignment of this vacancy to him was under consideration and he was asked to fill up a certain questionnaire and also to pay a deposit of six months' rent which he did.
Following on that on 22-4-1955 an allotment order was issued to him. It appears however that further correspondence from the petitioner was not attended to and on 19-8-1955 he was informed by the Controller of Accommodation that the Government had decided to de-requisition the premises in favour of the occupant.
In these circumstances the petitioner says that he is entitled to a writ in the nature of mandamus calling upon the respondents to cancel the order of de-requisition.
3. It is necessary to visualise what is the correct position of an allottee. An allottee under the Act is a licensee and he is a licensee on certain terms and conditions. Not only the Act itself makes him a licensee liable to have his licence cancelled at any time without assigning any reason, but the licensee takes the licence on the terms and conditions set out in the allotment order itself, and Clause 10 of the allotment order is clear which says 'Notwithstanding anything contained hereinbefore this order is liable to cancellation without assigning any reasons.
'The relevant section in this connection is Section 9 and Section 9 in terms gives absolute powers to the Government to de-requisition or release from requisition any land that may be requisitioned by them and it states that the State Government may, at) any time, release from requisition any land requisitioned or continue to be subject to requisition under this Act.
Section 8B provides for the vacating of the requisitioned land and recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue from the allottee. It says that the Government may deal with land allotted to any person on the land requisitioned or continued under requisition under this Act and direct the person to whom such land is allotted to vacate the same within such period as may be specified.
So that even if an allottee goes into possesion that possession can be put an end to by the Government at any time and at any short notice under the Land Requisition Act. Not only that, but the term of the licence, as I have indicated above, itself shows that he is there on those terms.
4. It was argued very strongly by Mr. Khambatta that he had acquired an interest in the allotment and that this is done mala fide for a collateral purpose namely letting into the premises a nominee of the tenant namely Dr. Dias.
I am not inclined to accept that and even if that were so the order made of de-requisition is not bad. The order of de-requisition is an order winch releases the land with the result that rights of parties which were there at the date of requisition revive.
The petitioner was served with an allotment order and if he is to have a cause of action at all, against the respondents that cause of action would be for wrongful revocation of the licence issued to him or promised to him and a breach of contract to give him the licence in return for his consideration namely information conveyed to Government.
I do not see how any fundamental right is involved or any statutory obligation on the part of the State broken by the facts disclosed on the face of the petition.
5. I therefore hold that this petition does not He, although for the detailed reasons I have given above, I would have also dismissed the petition on the merits. Therefore the notice will stand discharged with costs and the petition will be dismissed, Costs of the notice fixed at Rs. 90.
6. Petition dismissed.