SIKANDER JEHAN BEGUM AND ANOTHER v. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE GOVERNMENT
Citation: [1962] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 226; 1961 INSC 354
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA , P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH
Judgment date:
Case summary
1961 INSC 354. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1961-12-20. SIKANDER JEHAN BEGUM AND ANOTHER v. ANDHRA PRADESH STATE GOVERNMENT. Read the judgment and...
Judgment text
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 · 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 td Atiyat Enquiries Act. , 1915'.! (l\o. X of 1952) (hereinafter ca,I! ed the Act). The rlccision of this question lies within a uarrow compass but the facts leaping up to the C!
i. vil Appeal and the Writ Petition >tre somewhat complicated ·and they must be stated at the. outset in order that the background of the dispute mn. y be properly appreciateq. • Sikander Jehan Begum and Khurshi te daughter. These are res- pondents Nos .. 6-9 in the Writ Petition. The said illegitimate children were the issues of respondent Xos. 10 & 11 who were the concubines of the X r . Firman was isrn in the:m to As. -/2/- share. It was also declared that Sheereen Bua, Parichehra Buil. as the Mamtua wi. v1m of the late Nawab were entitled to · Guzara, (maint. enance) only. Ia bubstance, it is the order thus passed by the Chief ,\iinister which has . given rise to the present litigation between the partfoj!. · ' 'rhe. wi:,J o ws of. the late Nawab -Ah urndunnisa Begum. atld Azjzunnisa . Begum-challenged• the 1951 Siko. nd~r JehG1J Begum v. Andhra Prad,. sh Sl'lfe 1 }. ,. ~ernmet1t 1961 su •• . a. r J 1han Begima Vo . -f. JUihra Prodtlh Stau Go11nn~Jtl GaJtndrogad! ar J.
232 SUI'REME COURT REPOR'fS [1962] SUPP. validity uf the Government dedsion ree-0rded in the confirmatory order paosed by the Chief Minister by a Writ Petition hefor(' the High Court of Judica· turn at Hyderabad on Jum' 20, l 950. It was urged by them that the impugned deci8ion of the novcrn- meut W -ultra t>ires and null and void and they claimed a writ of Certiorari quashing the said deci- sion. As a cousequentia! relief, they claimed appropria1 e orders again8t th to l l deai with the constitutiun:~f in speci- fied which have been passed betwel'n September 18, 1948, and }larch 14, 1952. The first date refers to the commencement of the Police action 1md the latter to tho commencement of the operation of the Act. The object of the Legislature clearly is to validato order. , p&SSed between the said two dates so that the questions determined by the rele- vant orders should not be reopened for enquiry either before the Atiya~ Courts or before the Civil Courts.
It is not disputed that between the commence- ment of the police action and the passing of the Act events of historical importance took place in the State of Hyderabad and so trflating that period as of unusual significance is not open to to any eriticism. Therefm e, if the Legislature chose to deal with the orders passed during this period as constituting a claRs by themselves, that itself cannot be said to contravene Art. 14 of the Constitution. It is however, urged that the result of the impugned provision is to deny the petitioners their right to have questions of succession adjudicated upon hy a Civil Court and th11. t itself constitutes discrimination which contravenes Art. 14. In support of this argument, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Ammuronniaaa Bl! {}Um v. Mahboob &gum{'). We are not impre886d by this argument. In the case of Ammeerunnisea.
Begum it was obvious that the Legislature had singled out two groups of perBons consisting of two ladies and their children out of those who claimed to be related to the deceased Nawab Waliudowla and preven- ting thl·m from establishing their rights under the personal law which governed the community, m Courts of law. Unconstitutional discrimination (I) {1953] S. C. R. 404. 2 S. C. R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 237 was thus writ l:trg~ on t·he face of the Act impugned in that case. The position in the present case is very much different. Section 13 (2) does not validate. the orders passed in the enquiry relat- ing to the pres11nt case alone. It purports to vali- date the orders passed between the two specified dates in respect of all the enquiries which were then pending. That is one important point of dis- tinction. Besid<>s, a. s we will point out later, the nature. of the property in respect of which the petitioners make a· cliiim i11 funrlamentally diffe- rent Jrom that in the oa.
8e of Ammeerunnissa Begum .. The property in the latter case was heri- table property succession to which had to be de- termined under the principles of the personal la. w applicable to the parties, while in· the present case, the succession . to Atiyat pro- perty does not come as a matter of right to the heirs of the last holder. Therefore, in our opinion, the argument based upon the decision of the case Ammeerunnissa Begum cannot succeed. The chollange to the validity of s. 13 (2) has taken another form before us. It was argued that during the prescribed period, a . large number of c1B~ wore penrling orders by the authorities concerned. By chance or accident, orders by the relevant authorities were paeeed in the present case and may have been passed in some others. But there may be other cases of a similar type on which orders may not have been passed by the rele- vant authorities during the prescribed period and in singling out cases in which orders have been pa.
ased the impugned provision hM made a classi- fication whioh is irrational and offends against Art. 14. The. accident t,hat orders were passed in 11ome oases and were not passed in some others can- not afford a rational basis for classifying the two sets of cases. During the course of arguments, however, it turned out that. no fo,otual baai. s hl¥1 1981 Sikander J eha1 Bepitm •• Aridhra Pra r. It also appears that no suit relating to jagir c. ·mlrl bo instituted in the Civil Court without the prior special permission of the Nizam. ThA Firman issued on Deeember 16, 1901, to which the Judg- ment refers, shows that the heirs of the deceased holders of J agirs could not insist upon their right to succeed to the estate because no Atiyat grant was heritable. Another Firman issued on Septem- ber 28, 1928, showed that the powers of the grantor of the . Tq,gir could not be curtailed by the rulef!
framed for the guidance of the Atiyat Courts and that the grantor had an absolute right either to regrant the state to the successor or not.. There fore, the position appears to be that "the jagir tenure consisted of no more than usufructuary rights in land to which the revenue law of the State did not apply; that the Jagirs were inalienable and terminable on the death of the grantee, each Jagirdar, though an heir of the d~ceasecl holder, was deemed a fresh grantee of the estate, the right to confer such o. n estate being uncontrolled, abso- lute and beyond the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. It is true that on the death of a Jagirdar an enquiry was held about the succession to the said Jagir either by the Ativat Courts or by a commis- sion orTribunal specially appointed in that be- half; and it is also true that generally the pro- perty of the deceased Jagirdar was granted to the person who was held by the Nizam to be the suc- cessor of the deceased J agirdar.
But that does n~t· affect the trae le~il ch:tracter of the Jagir. 1961 Sikander . iehan Bet! wn •• Andhr11 f',adeshj Staie Go·1•rrnmn1t Gajrn. d. a. z. 1dkar J. Jl61 Siknid1r J1h411 Bttum Y. Andhra Prablh si. u lor~·"nmmt 2-tO SUPREME CJURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. This position is borne out by the previous Firma. ns i88ued bv the Nizam in regard to the enquiry of the Atiya. t e8tatPs Circular No. 34 of ! 341F pres- cribed rules for conducting enquiries and paBBing decision" in cases of Inam. Thie circular was subs· quently surJereedcd and in ita place Circular No. I 0 of J:l38 F was issued. The date of this latter circular is Juno 1:1, 1! 129. Several rules aro pres- cribed in the from of sections for holding enquiries and passing decisions in Inam cases. It is net necessarv to refor t d by the Circular for holding the enquiry. They are given powers to hold the enquiry.
The enquiries are intended to be he Id gen rally in accordance with the procedure pres- cribed in the Civil Procedure Code. Appeals aro provid1·d against the decision of one officC'r to the officer higher in rank, but the ultimate position appe>trs to be clear; when the Nizam-c-Atiya. t ex- presse~ his opinion and submits it to the Hon'ble the Revenue Mombcr, the l sucoos- sion to th" said estate must be left to be decided accorrlin~ to the peraonal law of the parties and it must he tried hy the ordinary Civil Court~. This po~ition is not disputed ·either by Mr. Vi1wanatha Sa. ~tri who appeared for the State or by Mr. Latifi who appeared for the respondents before 111. Inci- dentally, we may add that it appears that litigation is pendi11g in respect of this property between some of the parties in Civil Suit No. 139 of 1355F.
Since it is cornmon ground before> us that the non- A tiyat estate iJi not covered by the order pa8Md by the Chit'f Miniliter, all that we wi11h to do in the pre- sent Writ Petition is to make it clear that th11 sairl order doos not relate to non-Ativat estate and that questions of titla in respect of if. will have to be tried in the Civil Court•. In the reault, both the Writ Petition and the Appeal fail and are dis'llissed with costs. One set of heR. rin~ co~ts. Petition and Appeal dumi11tAl.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.