Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948

The petitioners, a coalition of cooperative societies running fair‑price ration shops and occupants of residential premises, challenged a State Government notice to vacate premises that had been requisitioned under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 more than four decades earlier. They argued that requisition could …

The appellant was allotted a flat in 1951 under an order of requisition issued by the State Government under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948, without the order specifying a public purpose. He occupied the flat, paying rent irregularly, and later the building was purchased by the third respondent who sought derequ…

The Supreme Court examined the constitutional validity of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control, Bombay Land Requisition and Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1996, which converted occupants of requisitioned premises into statutory tenants and ended the requisition. The petitioner…

The State of Maharashtra sought to acquire portions of two high‑rise buildings – the third floor of Reliance Centre and the second floor of the Express Building – where the land beneath the structures was owned by the Government or a Port Trust, but the buildings were owned by private parties. The key issue was whether…

The appellants, heirs of Kaihosrou (Chick) Kavasji Framji, claimed ownership of a 1.52‑acre property in Pune that had been leased to the Government and later requisitioned. The Union of India, asserting title, issued a notice under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, seeking…

The premises allotted to the appellant's mother under the Bombay Land Requisition Act were occupied by the appellant after her death. The respondent landlord obtained a court order for derequisition and possession, and the State Government ordered the appellant to vacate by 30‑August‑1996. The Supreme Court, while dism…

The Supreme Court examined a 1976 order that requisitioned two Nazul land parcels belonging to Rajendra Kumar Gupta and another, ostensibly to enable the U.P. State Handloom and Powerloom Finance and Development Corporation to set up a handloom showroom. The appellants argued that the Defence and Internal Security of I…

The appellant sought possession of premises that had been requisitioned under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 and later allotted to a government servant (respondent No.3). The requisition order was set aside, but the servant continued in possession after retirement and after a derequisition order. The State amend…