SARWARLAL AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF HYDERABAD

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 311 · Decided: 16-03-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
SARW ARLAL AND OTHERS 
THE STATE OJB' HYDERABAD 
311 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., JAF'ER IMAM, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. C. DAS GUPTA and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) 
Jagir, Abolition of-Regulations pr_omulgated by Military 
Governor and Prime Minister-Constitutional validity-Delegation 
of authority by Nizam-Nature and extent-Hyderabad (Abolition of 
Jagirs) Regulation, IJS8 Fasli, s. 6(4)-Hyderabad Jagir, (Commu-
tation) Regulation (XXV of IJ59 Fasli) s. 4(I)(c), 4(2)-Constitution 
of India, Art. 32(8). 
After the Police action in the State of Hyderabad in August, 
1948, the Nizam, by a Farman dated September 19, 1948, 
invested the Military Governor "with all authority for the 
administration of the State " and by a later Farman declared 
that " the said authority includes and has always included autho-
rity to make Regulations." By virtue of the said powers, the 
Military Governor promulgated the Hyderabad (Abolition of 
Jagirs) Regulations of 1358 Fasli. Thereafter on the termination· 
of the appointment of the Military Governor, the Nizam by 
another Farman appointed Mr. Vellodi as his Chief Minister and 
directed that "all the powers of administration, vested in the 
Military Governor before the said date are exercisable by the 
Chief Minister." Thus empowered, the Chief Minister promul-
gated the Hyderabad Jagirs (Commutation) Regulation XXV 
of 1358 Fasli. Thereafter with the commencement of the Consti-
tution of India, the territory of the State of Hyde.pbad became 
part of the Union of India and the President certified the two 
Regulations under Art. 31(6) of the Constitution. By the Consti-
tution (First Amendment) Act of 1951, Arts. 3r(A) and 31(B) and 
Sch. IX were inserted into the Constitution and the two Regula-
tions were included in the said schedule. The appellant, whose 
properties had been taken over by the Jagir Administrator under 
the Abolition Regulation, and who had, in the meantime, filed a 
writ petition in the High Court, by his amended petition after the 
amendment of the Constitution, claimed that ss. 4(r)(c) and 4(2) 
of the Commutation Regulation and s. 6(4) of the Abolition 
Regulation were confiscatory in nature and amounted to colour-
able and fraudulent exercise of legislative power. The High Court 
found against him and rejected his petition: 
Held, that the decision of the High Court must be affirmed. 
There can be no question that the Nizam, at the time when he 
executed the Farmans and prior to it, was an absolute ruler 
vested with all authority executive, legislative and judicial 
and had unquestionable powers to modify or extinguish any 
of the rights of his subjects and the language of the Farmans 
leaves no manner of doubt tha.t he thereby delegated the entirety-
I960 
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1960] 
z960 
of his authority aud powers to the Military Governor and there-
after to the Prime Minister. 
Sarwar/al 
The doctrine of invalidity of legislation enacted in colourable 
v. 
exercise of legislative authority can apply only where the legis-
Slal• of Hyderabad lature is subject to constitutional restrictions. But where the 
powers of the legislature suffers from no limitations, constitu-
tional or otherwise, that doctrine can have no application. 
No question of infringement of fundamental rights could 
arise as (i) the impngned Regulations were pre-Constitution legis-
lations and the appellant's rights had already been determined 
befor.e the Constitution, (ii) Art. 32(B) of the Constitution exempts 
the Regulations from such a challenge. 
Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay [1951] S.C.R. 
228, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeals 
Nos. 392 of 1956 & 686 of 1957. 
Appeals from the judgment and order dated March 
31, 1954, of the former Hyderabad High Court in 
Civil Writ Nos. 43 and 44of1951 respectively. 
S. P. Varma, S. Mohammed and S. R. Borgaouker, 
for the appellants in both the appeals. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, T. V. R. Tatachari and 
T. M. Sen, for the respondents in both the appeals. 
Civil Appe.al No. 392 of 1956. 
1960. March 16. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Shah J. 
SHAH, J.-This is an appeal filed with a certificate 
granted under Art. 133(l)(c) of the Constitution by 
. the High Court of Judicature of the State of 
Hyderabad. 
The appellant was a Jagirdar holding jagirs 
Ramwarm Chandam Palli and Gulla Palli, Taluq 
Sirsalla, in the District of Karimnagar in the State of 
Hyderabad. After the Police Ac
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.