Cantonments (Requisitioning of Immoveable Property) Ordinance, 1948

This 1948 Ordinance gave the Federal Government emergency power to requisition (take over) immoveable property within cantonment limits for purposes other than the Cantonment Boards' own use, excluding places of religious worship. It was enacted under wartime/post-partition emergency powers and remains in force until withdrawn.

Section 2 lets the Federal Government requisition property by written order whenever it considers this necessary or expedient, and then use or deal with the property as it thinks fit. When property is later released from requisition, Section 3 lets the government specify, by order, who should receive possession; if that person can't be found, the government can publish a release notice in the official Gazette and post it on the property, after which the property is deemed delivered to the rightful person and the government is no longer liable for it.

Section 4 addresses compensation: if the amount can be agreed by contract, it's paid accordingly; otherwise the Federal Government fixes a "reasonable amount" under rules it frames and publishes, and that determination is final -- no suit or appeal against the government is allowed over the compensation amount. Section 5 lets the government demand information about any immoveable property from any person, with a penalty of imprisonment up to six months or a fine up to five hundred rupees for refusing or providing knowingly false information. Section 5A (added later) gives general rule-making power.

Section 6 lets the government use whatever force is reasonably necessary to secure compliance with its orders. Section 7 allows delegation of powers to specified officers. Section 8 protects good-faith actions taken under the Ordinance from lawsuits, and shields the government from liability for good-faith damage caused while acting under it.

This is an old, broad emergency-powers statute from 1948 that gives the government very wide, largely unchallengeable authority over cantonment property, including a compensation-determination process explicitly shielded from judicial review. Given its age and the sweeping, colonial/wartime-style powers involved, its continued practical use and constitutional compatibility should be checked against current law before relying on it.