LexSIKANDER JEHAN BEGUM AND ANOTHER versus ANDHRA PRADESH STATE GOVERNMENT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
IHI ~20. 226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1962] SUPP. SIKANDER JEHAN BEGUM AND ANOTHER v. (ANDHRA PRADESH STATE GOVl·:~RMENT) B. P. SINHA. c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WA:scuoo. M. HmAYATt"LLAH and J, C. SrrAn, JJ.) Suuunon-Jagir-Enactment providing for firtality of order-Dtnial of juri&dktion to civil court-.ConatitutV.ma/ validity-Hy<krGbad Ati#at Enquirie• Act 1952 (10 of 1952) a.13(2)-Co'IU!ti!ution of India, Aris. 14, 19/l)(f). This writ petition on abo the appeal raised :he common question as to the constitutional validity of s. 13(2) of the Hyderabad Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952. The petitioners who wore also the appellants claimed succession to the properties, including Atiyat jagirs of their brother, a Nawah of Hydca- bad, who died in 194!. By a Firman of the Nizam his estate v.·as taken over by the Government into its supervision till his successors could be declared. In 1948, after the Police action had taken place, the Nizam on the aJvicc of the Mi.li- tary Governor issuecl a Firman appointing a tribunal to enquire into the question of succcs•ion. The Tribunal reported naming the successors, but the petitioners were not amongst them. There' after the Ni7.am clelegatcd all his authority If>· the Military Governor and in due course· the Ciiief Minister took the place of the Military Governor and in 19>0 the Constitution came into force. The Chief Minister confirmed the report of the Tribunal on April 3, 1950. Two of the widows of the Nawab challenged the validity of the Chi,,f Minister's order by a writ pctiti,,n in ihe High Court but to no effect. In the mcartimc the impugned Act had come into force on March 14 1952 ands. 13[2) provided as follows,- (2) The 0<den passed in cases rcl .. ting to A tiyat Grants including Jagirs on or after the 19th September, 1948 and befO<c the commencement of this Act by the Military Governor, the Chief Civil AC!ministrator. or the Chief Ministo" of Hyderabad or by the ~iivenuc Minis- ter by virtue of powers given or purportini: to be given to him by the Chief Minister shall he deemed to be the final orders validly pasJCd bv a competent authority under the law in force at the time when the order was passed and shall not be questioned in any court of law." T.he petitioners move(! this court under Art. 32 of the Constitution and aho preferred an appeal by special leave 2 S.O.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 227 against the order of the High Court. Reliance was placed on the decision nf this Court ih A1nmeerunn1:s.sa Begum v. Mah- bouu Begum, [1953] S. C. R. 404, and it was urged on their behalf that the impugned provision denied the petitioners the right to convass questions relating.to succe_ssioa in a civil court and thus infringed Art. 14 of the Constitution. Htld, that .the contention must be negatived. The object of the Legislature in enacting the impugned proVision·clear1y was to validate orders passed .between the commencement of the Police action and the date when the .Act came into force and forbid their reopening either before the Atiyat courts or the Civil courts. During- that period historical events took place in. the State of Hyderab•d and if the Legislature treated the orders passed during that period as constituting a class by themselves; no objection could be taken under Art. 14 of the Constitution on the ground of discrimination, and the decision relied on could not apply. Further, s. 13(2) did not validate merely the orders passed in the present case, buf validated all . orders passed during that specified period and applied only to Atiyat Jagir property to which the personal law of the parties could have no.application. . There could be no doubt that in Hyderabad a Jagir was not heritable. on the death of the jagirdar and in theory its dtvolution wa~ ·a1ways a case of resuriiption and re-grant by th~ Government a.nd cons._cquently, rio person claiming snccess- ion ·to_a jagir had the.right to.sue in a civil court and who- evef got the es.tate as a result of the decision of the Choif Mitiister got it by way of re-grarit made by the state. Ammeerunnissa Begum v, Mahboob, Begum-( 1953) So C.R. 404. distinguished and held inapplicable. Regard being had to the special character of the pro- perty in question it could not also be said that the impugned provision c.ontravc11ed Art. 19(l)(f) of the Constitution. CrvrL APPELLATE ,JumsnroTION: Civil Appeal No. 279 of 1960. Appeal by
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.