JUDGMENT : Narasimham, C.J. - This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order of the District Magistrate of Cuttack, refusing to restore possession of a house to the Petitioner situated in the town of Cuttack in holding No. 549 (new 256) appertaining to new Ward No. VI of Cuttack Municipality. 2. The material facts are as follows: On the 13th September 1948 the then District Magistrate of Cuttack, by his order No. 121549, issued in exercise of the powers conferred on him by Section 13(1) of Orissa Act IV of 1948 requisitioned the Petitioner's house "for providing residential accommodation to Sri S.K. Bagchi, Magistrate 1st Class belonging to essential services and rendering services essential to the community". The house was, in doe course occupied by Mr. Bagchi until his transfer from Cuttack on or about the 11th of, July 1950. Since then the house was used partly as residence and partly as the office of the staff of the Civil, Supplies Department of Cuttack Collectorate and the repeated requests of the Petitioner both to the District Magistrate and to the Government for restoration of the building were turned down. It appears that for a short period the house Was also used as the Club of the Civil Supplies Department, but it is admitted that it is at present used as the office and residence of the Civil Supplies staff. 3. To appreciate the legal questions involved It is necessary to review briefly the various State laws dealing with requisitioning of property. The earliest law is the Orissa Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1948 (Act IV of 1948), which by Section 13(1) conferred power on the Provincial Government or its delegated authority, to requisition any property movable or immovable, for the purposes specified in that Section. The validity of the order of the District Magistrate dated the 13th September 1948 was therefore rightly not challenged. That Act was given life only till the 1st April 1950. In that year the Orissa Legislature passed another Act known as the Orissa Maintenance of Public Order Act 1950 (Act X of 1950) by which, after repealing the 1948 Act, it was further provided (Section 29) that any order made under the 1948 Act shall be deemed to have been made under the corresponding provisions of the 1950 Act. In that year the Orissa Legislature passed another Act known as the Orissa Maintenance of Public Order Act 1950 (Act X of 1950) by which, after repealing the 1948 Act, it was further provided (Section 29) that any order made under the 1948 Act shall be deemed to have been made under the corresponding provisions of the 1950 Act. Section 15 of the 1950 Act dealt with requisitioning of property and that was a provision corresponding to Section 13 of the 1948 Act. The 1950 Act also expired on the 1st April 1951. Then the Orissa Legislature passed another Act known as the Orissa Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment) Act 1951 (Act XXI of 1951) on the 30th May 1951 and gave retrospective effect to it from the 31st March 1951. This act also ceased to be in force from 1st April 1952 on 26th April 1952 another Act entitled Orissa Maintenance of Public Order (Amendment) Act, 1952 (Act X of 1952) was passed, but that Act was not given any retrospective effect and was given life only till the 1st October 1952. By Section 5 of that Act, Section 15 of the 1950 Act (which was re-numbered as Section 20 by the 1951 Act) was completely omitted from the statute-book. The result was that on the 1st April 1952 there was no law of the State Legislature authorising requisitioning of private property for State purposes. On the 13th January 1953, the Legislature passed a self-contained law known as the Orissa Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 (Act XXIX of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the 1953 Act) the material portions of which may be summarised as follows. Section 3(1) gave power to the competent authority to requisition property if it was needed for any public purpose and Clause (a) of that Sub-section required the said authority to specify, in the notice of the requisition, the purpose for which the property was being requisitioned. Section 6(1) says that the State Government may release from requisition any property requisitioned under the Act and the proviso to Sub-section (1) of that Section further says that if the purpose for which the property was requisitioned, ceased to exist, the State Government shall, unless the property is acquired u/s 7, release that property as soon as possible from that requisition. Presumably the Legislature wag conscious of the fact that between the 1st April 1952 and the 13th January 1953 there was no State law dealing with requisitioning of property, though Government was in possession of properties of several persons by virtue of requisitions made under the provisions of the earlier Acts. With a view to validate these regulations Section 23(1) was enacted in the 1953 Act which runs as follows: 23(1) All immovable property which purports to have been requisitioned by the State Government for any public purpose, being a purpose of the said Government under any Provincial or State Act and which immediately before the commencement of this Act was used or occupied by the State Government or by an officer or authority subordinate to that Government, shall as from that date, be deemed to be property duly requisitioned u/s 3 of this Act, and every such requisition shall, notwithstanding any defect in or invalidity or repeal of, such Provincial or State Act, or any judgment, decree or order of any court, be deemed always to have been valid as if this Act had been in force on and from the date of the requisition and the requisition had been duly made by a competent authority under this Act, and all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly. 4. Mr. H. Mohapatra on behalf of the Petitioner urged that (1) the saving Section 23(1) will not save the present property inasmuch as due to the absence of any State law dealing with requisitioning of property, from the 1st April 1952 till the 13th January 1953, this property could not be said to have been in possession of the Government on the date of commencement of the 1953 Act in purported requisition under any State Law and (2) in any case, by virtue of the deeming provision in the last portion of Section 23 (1) of the 1953 Act, all requisitions made under the 1948 Act should be deemed to be requisitions made u/s 3 of the 1953 Act, and as the purpose of the original requisition, namely providing residential accommodation for Mr. Bagchi, ceased long ago Government were bound u/s 6(1) of the 1953 Act to restore possession of the house to the owner. 5. I think this application can be disposed of on the second contention raised by Mr. Bagchi, ceased long ago Government were bound u/s 6(1) of the 1953 Act to restore possession of the house to the owner. 5. I think this application can be disposed of on the second contention raised by Mr. Mohapatra and hence we do not wish to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the first contention raised by him. The last portion of Section 23(1) of the 1952 Act Is very clear. It says that any immovable property which purports to have been requisitioned under any provincial Act shall be deemed to have been validly requisitioned as if this Act (namely the 1953 Act) had been in force on or from the date of the requisition and the requisition had been duly made by a competent authority under the Act and all the provisions of the Act shall apply accordingly. The only natural meaning that can be given to these words is that a requisition made under the 1948 Act should be deemed to be a requisition made under the corresponding provisions of the 1953 Act, and all the provisions of the 1953 Act shall apply accordingly. Applying this rule to the present case we most assume that the requisition dated the 13th September 1948 by the District Magistrate is a valid requisition u/s 3(1) of the 1953 Act. The purpose of requisition was stated in the original order itself to be "residential accommodation for Mr. Bagchi". It is admitted that Mr. Bagchi left Cuttack long ago and that the building was no longer required for his accommodation. Section 6 of the 1953 Act shall also be deemed to apply to this requisitioning and by virtue of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of that Section the State Government is bound to release the house as soon as possible as the purpose of the requisition disappeared long ago. 6. The Advocate-General contended that though the original purpose of the requisition under the 1948 Act was to provide residential accommodation for Mr. Bagchi after his transfer the building Was utilised for the use of the Civil Supply staff of the Cuttack Collectorate from July 1950 and the purpose of requisitioning should therefore be deemed to be to provide accommodation, residential and office, for the staff of the Civil Supplies section of Cuttack Collectorate an unable to accept this argument. Bagchi after his transfer the building Was utilised for the use of the Civil Supply staff of the Cuttack Collectorate from July 1950 and the purpose of requisitioning should therefore be deemed to be to provide accommodation, residential and office, for the staff of the Civil Supplies section of Cuttack Collectorate an unable to accept this argument. It is true that when the 1948 Act expired in 1950, the 1950 and 1951 Acts kept alive the requisition made under the 1948 Act and further directed that such requisition shall be deemed to have been made under the corresponding provisions of the two Acts, but all these deeming provisions disappeared completely from the 1st April 1952 when the provision dealing with requisitioning of property ceased to be on the statute book. It was only on the 13th January 1953 that the Legislature enacted the 1958 Act and introduced a special deeming provision in Section 23(1) of that Act with a view to validate requisitions made under the old expired Acts, and we must construe this deeming provision very strictly. It speaks of a law dealing with requisitioning of property by a Provincial or State Act. Obviously, the reference is to pre-Constitution Acts, when the expression 'Provincial' was used in place of the expression 'State' which is a post-Constitution expression. Hence, it is clear that the Legislature was fully aware of this position and wanted to validate all requisitions made under the 1948 Act. When it expressly says that if any property requisitioned under any old Act is In actual possession of Government on the date of commencement of the 1952 Act, that requisition shall be deemed to be valid as if the 1952 Act had been in force on the date of commencement of the requisition itself and that all the provisions of the 1953 shall apply accordingly, we must simply substitute the 1953 Act for the 1948 Act In the original order of requisitioning, dated the 13th September 1952 made by the District Magistrate and apply the other provisions of the 1953 Act to the requisition order. If such a construction is followed then it is obvious that the purpose of the requisition under the 1953 Act wilt be deemed to be the provision of residential accommodation for Mr. If such a construction is followed then it is obvious that the purpose of the requisition under the 1953 Act wilt be deemed to be the provision of residential accommodation for Mr. Bagchi and since that purpose ceased long ago the owner is entitled to get back possession of her house by virtue of Section 6(1) of the 1952 Act. 7. We would accordingly allow this petition and direct Government to give up possession of the house to the Petitioner within one week from today. The Petitioner is also entitled to the costs of this petition. Hearing fee is assessed at Rs. 100/. (Rupees one hundred only) Petition allowed. Das, J. I agree. Final Result : Allowed