ANIYOTH KUNHAMINA UMMA versus MINISTRY OF REHABILITATION AND OTHERS

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 505 · Decided: 22-03-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
' 
'
I S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
505 
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that 
under the Rules the respondents could request the 
mining authorities to exempt them from the operation 
of rule 76 of the Indian Coal Mines Regulation, 1946, 
and if exemption was granted, they could remove the 
coal left by the appellant in the encroached area. 
This possibility of the respondents getting an exemp-
tion from the operation of the rule was not raised 
either before the learned Subordinate Judge or before 
the High Court. Nor can we hold in favour of the 
appellant on the basis of such a possibility. We, 
therefore, accept the concurrent finding of fact arrived 
at by the courts below in respect to this issue. 
No other point was raised. The appeal fails and 
is dismissed with costs . 
Appeal dismissed. 
ANIYOTH KUNHAMIN A UMMA 
v. 
MINISTRY OF REHABILITATION AND 
OTHERS 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., s. K. DAS, A. K. SARKAR, 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR and 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Fund~ment~l. Rig_hts-Evacuee Property-Declaration becoming 
final-Writ Petition in Supreme Court challenging declaration-
Maintainability of-Constitution of India, Art. 32. 
/ 
. The petitioner's husband transferred certain property to the 
petitioner. A notice under s. 7, Administration of Evacuee Pro-
perty Act, 1950, was issued to the petitioner and to her husband 
and the husband was declared an evacuee and the property was 
declared as evacuee property by the Assistant Custodian. An 
appeal to the Deputy Custodian and there.after a revision peti-
tion to the Custodian General by th~ petitioner were dismissed. 
The petitioner applied to the Supreme Court under Art. 32 of 
the Constitution contending that her fundamental rights under 
64 
K. S. Nanji 
if.. Company 
v. 
Jatashankar 
Dossa &- Others 
Subba Rao ]. 
r96r 
MaYch 22. 
506 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
r96r 
Arts. l9(1)(f) and 31 were infringed by the orderof the Assistant 
Custodian and prayed for the restoration of the property. 
Aniyoth 
Held, that the petition under Art. 32 was incompetent ~s no 
Kunhamina Umma question of violation of any fundamental right arose in the qase . 
. . v. 
The decision of an authority of competent jurisdiction bad nega-
Mim_si:y 0! 
tived the existence of the right alleged by the petitioner and 
Rehabilitation 
unless that decision was held to be a nullity or could be other-
& Others 
wise got rid of, the petitioner could not;complain of any infringe-
ment of a fundamental right. The alleged fundamental right 
of lhe 1petitioner was dependent on whether her husband was an 
evacuee and whether his property was evacuee property. The 
decision on that question had become final and no question of 
1ack of jurisdiction was involved. 
Sahibzada Saiyed Muhammed Amirabbas Abbasi v. The State of 
Madhya Bharat, [196o]:il S.C.R. 138, applied. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: 
Petition No. 32of19p9. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India 
for enforcement of Fundamental Rights. 
V. A. Seyid Muhamad, for the petitioner. 
N. S. Bindra, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the 
respondents. 
1961. March 22. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
s. K. Das J. 
S. K. DAS, J.-This is a writ petition under Art. 32 
of the Constitution. The relevant facts lie within a 
narrow compass, and the short point for decision is 
whether in the circumstances of this case the petitibner 
can complain of an infringement of the fundamental 
rights guaranteed to her under Arts. 19(l)(f) and 31 of 
the Constitution. 
The relevant facts are these. The petitioner's hus-
< 
band Kunhi Moosa Haji, it is alleged, carried on a 
hotel business in Karachi which is now in Pakistan. 
The petitioner stated that her husband had been 
carrying on the said business since 1936. It is not in 
dispute, however, that in the relevant year, that is, 
1947, when the separate dominion of Pakistan was 
set up, the petitioner's husband was in Karachi. The 
petitioner stated that at the end of August, 1949, her 
husband returned to Malabar, in India. On behalf of 
respondent no. 1, the Ministry of Rehabilitation, 
l' 
Government of India, it is averred that the petitioner's 
• 
• 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
507 
husband surreptitiously returned to India without a 
r96r 
valid passport in 1953 and was arrested for an alleged 
. 
infringement of the provisio~s of the Fo.:eigners Act. Kunh~;:;::~mma 
On December 7, 1953, Kunh1 Moosa HaJI transferred 
v. 
in favour of his wife his right, title an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.