JUDGMENT
1. Heard Counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents No. 2 and 3 to re-deliver possession of premises No. CK 32/18, Goenka Bhawan, Gyanvapi, Varanasi to the petitioner alongwith arrears of compensation.
3. The aforesaid property was requisitioned under the U.P. Accommodation Requisition Act, 1947 for the office of the Chief Executive Officer, Kashi Vishwanath Mandir Board by order, dated 18.11.1985 (Annexure '1' to the writ petition). Earlier, on 22.8.1985, a show cause notice was given to the petitioner, vide Annexure '2' to the writ petition. The petitioner filed an objection, dated 10.9.1985, vide Annexure '3' to the writ petition. The petitioner thereafter submitted on 24.10.1985 the proposed terms and conditions for acquisition, vide Annexure '4' to the writ petition. However, it is alleged in para '5' of the petition that respondent No. 3 unilaterally fixed the terms and conditions. The petitioner on 17.12.1985 filed objection regarding the quantum of compensation which was fixed at Rs. 1000/- per month vide Annexure '5' to the writ petition. Another objection, dated 29.1.1986 is Annexure '6' to the writ petition. Petitioner made various representations claiming certain amounts but to no effect. Hence this writ petition.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents and we have perused the same.
5. It appears that the aforesaid premises was requisitions for the office and residence of the Chief Executive Officer of the Board which runs the Kashi Vishwanath Temple. In paragraph '14' of the writ petition, it is mentioned that now respondent No. 4 has acquired its own accommodation and the impugned requisition order has thus automatically come to an end and the petitioner is entitled to restoration of possession. Representation, dated 30.8.1993 in this connection is Annexure '12' to the writ petition.
6. In Paragraph '24' of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the accommodation which has been acquired for the Chief Executive Officer is not adequate and hence the accommodation in question is also needed and rent is being paid for the same.
7. In our opinion, this writ petition deserves to be allowed on a very short point. There is a difference between requisition and acquisition. In the case of acquisition, title passes to some one other than the original owner, whereas in the case of requisition, title does not pass and only possession passes, vide Kewal Chand Mimani v. S.K. Sen, AIR 2001 SC 2569 : 2001 SCFBRC 424, Bhagwati Devi v. Sardar Balwant Singh, 1995 ALJ 1 (F.B.) and State of U.P. v. Shri Thakurji, 1995 ALJ 390 etc. Moreover, requisition can only before a temporary period as held by the Supreme Court in Kewal Chand Mimani's case (supra), vide para '7' of the said decision.
8. In this case, the requisition order was passed in 1985 i.e., 18 years back. No requisition can last for such a long period. The authorities have acted arbitrarily in keeping the property requisitioned for such a long period. By now they should have either acquired it and given compensation to the petitioner, or have released it. As held by the Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 1597, arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The property, which was requisitioned was CK 31/18, Goenka Bhawan, Gyanvapi, Varanasi whereas the property which was acquired is premises No. CK 34/57, Saraswati Phatka, Varanasi. These are two totally different properties.
9. The petition is, therefore, allowed. The respondents are directed to immediately re-deliver possession of CK 31/18, Goenka Bhawan, Gyanvapi, Varanasi to the petitioner and pay him compensation of Rs. 1 Lac within two months.