1. SIDDIKY, C. J.-In this application under Article 98 of the Constitution, the petitioner, Haji Md. Kinu Munshi has challenged the validity of an order made by the Deputy Commissioner, Khulna, on 18- 5-67 under section 12-A of tile East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Pict, 194$ (East Bengal Act XIII of 1948).
2. The petitioner's case, in brief, is that he is the owner of certain plots of land in Monza Chotta Boyra, J. L. No. 1, under the Khulna Collectorate including plot No. 712 measuring 0.08 acres and plot No. 713 measuring 0.13 acres and that these two plots of land along with others belonging to the petitioner measuring a total of 3.85 acres were requisitioned by the Government of Undivided Bengal in Land Acquisition Case No. 88 Twin Nessen huts of 1943-44 of the Khulna Collectorate under rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules. According to the petitioner, it was stipulated in the said order of requisition that the requisition shall continue to remain in force till the duration of the Second World War and for a period of six months thereafter. The requisition, however, was extended up to the 24th of April 1956, by the Requisition of Lands (Continuance of Powers) Act which was to expire on the 25th of April 1956. It is the further case of the petitioner that after the 25th April 1956, he took back possession of the said lands and since then has been in physical possession of the same except certain plots on which the godowns of the Civil Supplies Department were standing. The petitioner was paid compen--sation for trees standing on his lands in 1944 but no compensation for the lands was paid to him from 1944 to 1956 in spite of his repeated prayers. The petitioner who had huts on plots Nos. 712 and 713 was reconstructing a but after dismantling an old one on the 15th April 1967 when some persons on behalf of the land Acquisition Officer and the Controller of Movement and Storage, Khulna, obstructed the petitioner in putting up the structures. The petitioner, however, did not pay any heed to these obstructions and constructed the hut. On the 23rd April 1967, the petitioner made a representation to the Land Acquisition Collector and demanded compensation for his lands from 1944 to 24th of April 1956, but on the 24th May 1967 the petitioner was surprised to receive a notice dated 18th May 1967, from the Deputy Commissioner.
3. Khulna purported to have been made under section 12-A of the East Bengal (Emergency)
4. Requisition of Property Act, 1948 asking him to vacate C. S. Plots Nos. 712 and 713 by 30th May 1967, on the grounds that the two above-mentioned plots were already under requisition and possession of the Government and an attempt on the part of the petitioner to construct huts thereon amounted to trespass on the requisitioned land. The petitioner asserts in his petition that these two plots, namely, 712 and 713, were never requisitioned by the Government and was never in its possession and as such the notice under section 12-A of the East Bengal (Emergency)
5. Requisition of Property Act, 1948, was not applicable to him and the Deputy Commissioner, Khulna had no legal authority to issue the said notice. He has, therefore, prayed for cancellation of the said notice dated 18-5-67 made under through the Land Acquisition Officer, Khulna. In the affidavit-in- opposition, it has been asserted by the respondent No. 1 that the two plots 712 and 713 which are included in the lands of the petitioner measuring 3.85 acres were requisitioned as far back as 1943- 44 in their L. A. Case No. 88 1943-44 and since then the aforesaid lands including these two plots and railways sidings are in possession of the Government on which the Government has put up Food godowns for the Civil Supplies Department, and that the said requisition made in 1943-44 was continued up to 24th of April 1956, on which date under orders of the Government of East Pakistan the Deputy Commissioner, Khulna issued a fresh notice of requisition of the said lands requisitioned under the Requisition of Lands (Continuance of Powers) Act which was to expire on the 24th of April 1956, and since that date these two plots are in possession of the Government. Further, it was asserted by the respondent that the petitioner, Haji Md. Kinu Munshi, had notice of this requisition made on 24-4-56 and he had on several occasions made representations to the Government for payment of compensation in respect of those lands. In support of this contention of the respondent, the respondent has annexed copies of number of documents marked Annexures `F', `G', `H', and `I'. It is the further case of the respondent that on a report dated 29-4-67 made by one Md. Hossain, an Inspector of Food, that some unknown persons were forcibly raising a Golpata shed on the south-east corner of the Central supply Dept. Land at Mouza Chhota Boyra, P. S. Khulna since last night and that there was a possibility of breach of peace, the Deputy Commis--sioner had asked the Sub-Divisional Officer, Khulna to make enquiry into the matter and submit a report to him. The S. D. O. Submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner about the illegal construction of a thatched but on the requisitioned land in possession of the Government by the son of Haji Md.
6. Kinu Munshi and the Deputy Commissioner thereafter issued the notice under section 12-A of the East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948 directing the petitioner to remove the obstruction by 30-5-67. The respondent has denied the construction of any structure by the petitioner on the land on 15-4-67 and asserted that the petitioner started putting up the unauthorised construction on 29-4-67 after serving a notice demanding justice on the Deputy Commissioner. It is, therefore, the case of the respondent that the notice under section 12-A of the East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948 is valid and lawful.
7. Mr. Meser A.I, the learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted before us that at no point of time plots Nos. 712 and 713 were requisitioned by the Government after the expiry of the Requisition of Lands (Continuance of Powers) Act on the 25th of April 1956 and the petitioner has been in possession of the said two plots since after April 1956. Mr. Meser A.I's contention on law is that, in the absence of any requisition order passed by the Deputy Commissioner requisitioning the two plots, namely, 712 and 713, it cannot be held that these two plots were validly requisitioned by the Government. He has. In this connection, drawn our attention to Annexure `D' of the petition which is a copy of the Order Sheet of L. A. Case No. 8 of 1956-57. He has from this argued that the plpis mentioned in this order or requisition does not include the to plots 712 and 713 and this is the only order of requisition made by the Deputy Commissioner. Further, this order of requisition rates to lands of Mouza Boyra J. L. No. 12 of P. S. Daulatpur in the District of Khulna and has no connection with the lads of the petitioner which is situated in plot Chotta Boyra J. y. No. 1 within the Khulna Collectorate. Mr. Meser A.I s denied the receipt of any notice of requisition or any requisite order having been passed by the Deputy Commissioner in regard to plots Nos. 712 and 713.
8. The learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the respondent in this case contended that the two plots 712 and 713 are included in the total area of land, namely, 385 acres, belonging to the petitioner and were acquired in L. A. Case No. 88 of 1943-44 and continued to be under requisition in possession of the Government until April 1956, when, under orders of the Provincial Government, fresh requisition of these lands was served on the petitioner and since then the lands in question are in possession of the Government as requisition lands. The learned Advocate-General, in support of ,his contention, has referred us to a copy of the notice of requisition in respect of these two plots of lands made by the Land Acquisition Collector, Khulna issued under the signature of the Land Acquisition Collector, Khulna on 25-4-56. The learned Advocate-General has placed before us the original file in this case in which the office copy of this requisition notice dated 25-4-56 is maintained. The two plots 712 and 713 are mentioned in this notice or requisition. The respondent has also annexed a copy of the telegram sent by the Revenue Department of the Government of East Pakistan which is in The following terms:- "Re Requisitioned Land (Continuance of Powers) Act hill lapse from 24th instant (.) So please requisition all properties now under Requisitioned Land Continuance of Powers)Act under 1Ae Provisions of the East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act with effect from that date ( . )"
9. The learned Advocate-General has contended that, pursuant to this telegraphic order of the Government, the Deputy Commissioner, Khulna, took immediate steps and issued notice for requisition of the two plots of lands along with others, as will be evidence from Annexure B' to the affidavit-in-opposition.
10. Next, the learned Advocate-General submitted that the petitioner on the 1st of August 19 62, entered into an Agreement with the Deputy Commissioner, Khulna, which was signed the Land Acquisition Officer, Khulna, on 21-8-62 with regard to payment of compensation for requisition of the lands mentioned in the schedule thereof. The amount found in this Agreement to have been paid to the petitioner by the Government is Rs. 10,9-16.68 paisa. Mr. Meser A.I, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, admits that his client executed this Agreement and received the amount mentioned therein. The Schedule in this Agreement is as follows: "Mouza Chota Boyra.
11. P. S. Khulna.
12. Plots Nos. 707, 706, 705, 704, 702, 701, 708, 710, 711, 714,. 234, 235, 252, 712, 713 and 703-3.81 acres."
13. From this, the learned Advocate-General contended that not only these two plots were under requisition and in possession of the Government but the petitioner was also aware of it and be has taken compensation for the same, as will be evident from the Agreement (Annexure `F' to the affidavit-in-opposition). We may here say that in the original file produced before us by the learned Advocate-General the Original of this Agreement is maintained.
14. Next, the learned Advocate-General has referred us to Annexure `G' of the affidavit-in-opposition which is a copy of a petition by the petitioner addressed to the Land Acquisition Collector, Khulna, dated 19-5-63. Para. 2 of this document is as follows: "That a notice has been served upon me to file objection against Requisition and Acquisition of land."
15. Then the learned Advocate-General referred us to Annexure `H' of the Affidavit-in-Opposition. This is a copy of a petition filed by the petitioner before us, Haji Md. Kinu Munshi, in the Court of L. A.
16. Collector, Khulna, for reviewing the compensation of his requisitioned lands. Paragraph 3 of this petition refers to Land Acquisition Case No. 8/1956-57(4) in respect of 3.85 acres of his land but he says that no notice for acquisition of this land has been served on him. Paragraph 7 of this petition is in the following terms :- "That Government took over possession of the land in the year 1942 and till date is in possession of the land. We would request your kindself to assess recurring compensation for the period from 1947 to 1962 for the ends of justice."
17. The last of the documents to which we have been referred to by the learned Advocate-General is Annexure `I' to the Affidavit---in-Opposition which is a copy of a petition by the petitioner before us addressed to the Secretary, Pre-Partition Claim Committee (Revenue Deptt.), Eden Buildings, Dacca. In this petition also, the petitioner by reference to plot numbers which included plots Nos.
18. 712 and 713 has prayed for recurring compensation at a higher rate for his entire 3.85 acres of land said to have been requisitioned by the Government in 1943 and thereafter in L. A. Case No. 8/1956- 57 (4) of 1956.
19. On the basis of all these documents to which we have referred to, the learned Advocate-General contended that not only the notice dated 25-4-56 requisitioning plots Nos. 712 and 713 of the petitioner was served but the petitioner was throughout aware of this requisition in regard to these two plots and on the basis of that had times without number applied for recurring compensation for his requisitioned lands and had also taken a sum of Rs. 10,946.68 paisa in 1962. But since the lands requisitioned by the Government on which the Civil Supplies Godowns have been constructed are not enclosed by any boundary wall, the petitioner, with an ulterior motive, on the 29th of April 1967, attempted to construct a Golpatha but in corner of the requisitioned land bearing plots Nos. 712 and 713. The learned Advocate-General, therefore, submitted that the notice dated 18-5-67 issued under section 12-A of Act XIII of 1948 directing the petitioner to remove the unauthorised construction from the requisitioned land is perfectly valid and the petitioner has no right to call the same in question.
20. Further, the learned Advocate-General submitted that this petition is liable to be dismissed on two other grounds, namely, that the petitioner, on his own admission made in several documents, copies of which have been annexed to the affidavit---in-opposition, was aware of the requisition as far back as 1962, and if even his contention that the notice for requisition was not served on him personally is accepted, the application having been made in May 1967, suffers from unusual delay.
21. Secondly, the petitioner has not come with clean hands before the Court for a relief under Article 98 because of the fact that he, being fully aware of these two plots having been requisitioned and were in possession of the Government as requisitioned land for which he took compensation in 1962, suppressed the true and actual facts in his petition.
22. The originals of all the documents annexed to the affidavit---in-opposition were placed by the learned Advocate General before us. From the notice dated 25-4-56 which includes plots Nos. 712 and 713, we are satisfied that these two plots of land were not only under requisition from 1943-44 but were also again requisitioned in 1956, and from the rest of the documents to which we have already made reference, we are also satisfied that the petitioner had the knowledge of this requisition and these two plots of land along with others were under requisition and in pos-- session of the Government on the day the petitioner alleges to have constructed, or reconstructed a but on these two plots. In the face of the facts disclosed by the documents, referred to earlier, we are not prepared to accept the petitioner's statement that he was in possession of plots Nos. 712 and 713 at any point of time beginning from 1944 when first these lands along others stood requisitioned.
23. Section 12-A of the East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948 is in the following terms :- "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other lava for the time being in force, if any immovable property under requisition, which has been allotted to any person or is in unauthorised occupation of any person is required by the Deputy Commissioner for any other use of purpose during the period of requisition or for restoring the property under section 8 on its release from requisition, the Deputy Commis--sioner may, at any time by written order, direct such person to vacate the property by such date as may be specified in such order, and if such person does not vacate the property by the date so specified, the Deputy Commissioner may evict such persons from such property and may use or cause to be used such force for the purpose as may be necessary Provided that no person shall be so evicted between sunset and sunrise."
24. The order dated 12-7-67 granting stay is hereby vacated.
25. ABDULLAH JABIR, J.-I agree.