LexTHE STATE OF BIHAR versus KUMAR AMAR SINGH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
...,, ... .. S.C.R . SUPREME COURT REPORTS THE STATE OF BIHAR ti. KUMAR AMAR SINGH AND OTHERS (And connected Appeal) 1259 [S. R. DAs, BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHADAS, VENKATA- RAMA AYYJi.R and B. P. SINHA JJ.J Constitution of India, Arts. 5 and 7 and Proviso to Art. 7-Wife migrated from India to Pakistan after the ]st March, 1947-Her hus- band continued to be in India-Wife whether citizen of India- Art .. 7 ovem'ding Art. 5-Administration of Evacuee Property r;Jrdi- nance 1949 (XXVII of 1949)-Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1950 (Act XXXI of 1950)-Evacuee Property Ordinance (Bihar Ordinance · No. III of 1949)-Evacuee Property-Definition of- W hether includes interest of an evacuee in property held as trustee or beneficiary and whether includes wakf property and interest therein. The relevant portion of Art. 5 of the Constituti~n reads :- "At the commencement of this Constitution every person who ha~ his domicile in the territory of India and who was born in the territory of fodia shall be a citizen of India". · Article 7 of the Constitution lays down :- "Notwithstanding anything in Art. 5, a person wh\l has after the first day of March 1947, migrated from the territory of India to the territory now included in Pakistan shall not be deemed to be a citizen of India". It was contended on behalf of the respondent Kumar Rani who had migrated from India to Pakistan in 1948 that she was, and con- tinued to be, a citizen of India on the ground that she was born in India and her domicile continued to be that of her husband, who throughout continued to be in India and ·that her case was CO\'.ered by Art. 5 of the Constitution. Held (repelling the contention) that A~t. 7 of the Constitution clearly overrides Art. 5. As the respondent had migrated from India to .Pakistan after the 1st March, 194 7, her case fell under Art. 7 of the Constitution and that inasmuch as it was a case of an un- authorised issue of an invalid permit which had been properly can- celled the proviso to Art. 7 did not apply and that therefore the res- pondent could not be deemed to be a citizen of India. Held also, that the definitions of the phrase "evacuee property" in the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance 1949 and the Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1950 (XXXI of 1950) clearly include the interest of an evacuee in any property held as a trustee or beneficiary. The definition of evacuee property in Evacuee Pro- perty Ordinance 1949 (Bihar Ordinance No. III of 1949) is not 1955 Febtuary 10 1260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] 1955 different and the words used therein comprise also wakf property "" -f, The State ·of Bihar and any interest therein.' v. Kumar Amar Singh and others C1v1L APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 97 aod 98 of 1952. Appeals under Articles 132 ( 1) and 133 ( 1) ( c) of the Constitution of India from the Judgment aod Decree dated .the 13th. October 1950 of the High Court' of Judicature at Patna in Miscellaneous Judicial Cases Nos. 140 and 107 of 1950. M. C. Setalvad, Attoriley-Generdl for India ( G. N.· Jorhi, Lal Narain Sinha .and· P. G. Gokhale with him); for the appellant in C.A. Nos. 97 and 98 of 1952. B. Sen and I. N. 'Shroff, for the respondents Nos. 1 ~~ . . ·. .. 1955. February 10. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by J AGANNADHADAS J .-These are two . connectecl appeals arising out of a common judgment of the High Court of Patna on two applications to it dated the 5th July, 1950 and 28th July, 1950, under article 226 of the Constitution. The State of Bihar. is the appellant in both· the appeals. The first three respon-· dents in Appeal No. 97 are the sons of the fourth respondent therein, viz. Kumar Rani Sayeeda Kha- toon (hereinafter referred to as Kumar Rani). The said Kumar Rani is also the first respondent in Appeal No. 98. The other. respondents in both the appeals are Government Officers under the appellant, the State of Bihar. The applications before the High . Court arose with reference to· action taken against ( l) the property, and .(2}. the .person, of Kumar Rani by the Officers of the Government of Bihar, .under the following circumstances. Kumar Rani was admittedly born in the territory of India and claims to be the lawfully wedded wife of Captain Maharaj Kumar Gopal ·saran Narayan Singh of. Gaya by virtue of an alleged marriage between them in 1920 according to Arya
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.