- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Firdosh Fatima (Smt) (Since Dead) And Others v. Firdosh Begum (Smt) (Dead) And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Two appeals were filed against a Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Hakim Singh v. Shiv Sagar (AIR 1973 All 596 (FB)). The matter concerns the effect and validity of the U.P. Amendment Act 33 of 1972, which amended the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962 by inserting Section 4 to abolish Letters Patent Appeals from a Single Judge’s writ jurisdiction decisions (under Articles 226/227) in specified revenue, tenancy, zamindari abolition, and consolidation matters, while saving pending appeals by Section 4(2).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether Section 4 of the U.P. Amendment Act 33 of 1972 validly abolishes Letters Patent appeals from Single Judge writ decisions in the specified classes of cases.
- Whether the State Legislature had legislative competence to enact Section 4 abolishing such Letters Patent appeals in respect of revenue and tenancy matters.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Hasinuddin Khan v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1980) 3 SCC 285, (1980) 2 SCR 1207 | A Constitution Bench upheld the validity of the Act abolishing Letters Patent appeals in the covered categories. | Treated as settling the controversy; the Court relied on it to dismiss the present appeals. |
| State of Bombay v. Narothamdas Jethabhai, 1951 SCR 51, AIR 1951 SC 69 | Ratio supporting the legislative validity of abolishing a form of appeal (as relied on in Hasinuddin Khan). | Not independently analysed; noted as part of the chain of authority underpinning Hasinuddin Khan. |
| Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh & Others, (1968) 2 SCR 95, AIR 1968 SC 714 | Authority supporting validity of the legislative change affecting appeals (as relied on in Hasinuddin Khan). | Not independently analysed; cited as supporting precedent followed in Hasinuddin Khan. |
| Union Of India v. Mohindra Supply Co., (1962) 3 SCR 497, AIR 1962 SC 256 | Validity of Section 3 of the 1962 Act was upheld; constitutional challenge rejected. | Used to reinforce that the legislative abolition of Letters Patent appeals had already been upheld. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court held that Section 4 operates to take away the High Court’s power to entertain Letters Patent appeals under clause (10) of the Letters Patent dated 17-3-1866 read with clause (17) of the U.P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, for the enumerated subject-matters. It found that the question was no longer open because a Constitution Bench in Hasinuddin Khan v. Dy. Director of Consolidation had already upheld the validity of the Act, following earlier Supreme Court authority including State of Bombay v. Narothamdas Jethabhai, Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh, and Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co. The Court further observed that legislative competence to abolish such appeals in revenue and tenancy matters was covered by the relevant State List (List II) entries in the Seventh Schedule concerning the jurisdiction and powers of courts for matters in List II. On that basis, the Act (and Section 4) stood upheld, and the controversy did not survive.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The appeals were dismissed, with no order as to costs.
The direct consequence is that the challenge to the abolition of Letters Patent appeals in the specified categories (revenue/tenancy and related matters under the listed statutes) fails in these appeals, consistent with Constitution Bench authority. The opinion applies existing precedent and does not indicate that any new legal principle or precedent was created.
Order
1. These two appeals arise from a Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Hakim Singh v. Shiv Sagar AIR 1973 All 596 (FB). The U.P State Legislature enacted U.P Amendment Act 33 of 1972 amending U.P High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962 and enacted Section 4 thereof which reads as under:
“4. Abolition of appeals from the judgment or order of one judge of the High Court made in the exercise of writ jurisdiction in certain cases.— (1) No appeal, arising from a suit or proceeding instituted or commenced, whether prior or subsequent to the commencement of this section, shall lie to the High Court from a judgment or order of one judge of the High Court, made in the exercise of jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution, in respect of a judgment, decree or order made or purported to be made by the Board of Revenue under the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901, or the U.P Tenancy Act, 1939, or the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, or the Uttar Pradesh Urban Areas Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956, or the Jaunsar-Bawar Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1956, or the Kumaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960, or by the Director of Consolidation (including any other officer purporting to exercise the powers and to perform the duties of Director of Consolidation) under the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, anything to the contrary contained in clause (10) of the Letters Patent of Her Majesty, dated 17-3-1866, read with clauses 7 and 17 of the U.P High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, or in any other law notwithstanding.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), all appeals pending before the High Court on the date immediately preceding the date of commencement of this section shall be heard and disposed of as if this section had not been enacted.”
2. By operation of this enactment, the power to entertain Letters Patent appeal under clause (10) of the Letters Patent dated 17-3-1866 read with clause (17) of U.P High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, in respect of the enumerated subjects mentioned therein stands taken away. The controversy is no longer res integra. This Court in Hasinuddin Khan v. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1980) 3 SCC 285, (1980) 2 SCR 1207 by a Constitution Bench has already upheld the validity of the Act, following the ratio of this Court in State of Bombay v. Narothamdas Jethabhai 1951 SCR 51, AIR 1951 SC 69, Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh (1968) 2 SCR 95, AIR 1968 SC 714 and Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co. (1962) 3 SCR 497, AIR 1962 SC 256 As a fact, this Court has upheld the validity of Section 3 of 1962 Act in Mohindra Supply Co. case (1962) 3 SCR 497, AIR 1962 SC 256. It was held thus:
“The challenge to these Acts on the ground of their unconstitutionality is, therefore, rejected.”
3. In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench, the controversy no longer survives. The legislative competence in abolishing Letters Patent appeals in respect of revenue and tenancy matters is covered under Section 4 of the said Act. They are under respective legislative entries in State List II in VIIth Schedule to the Constitution relating to jurisdiction and powers of all courts of administration of justice in the State of Uttar Pradesh with respect to the matters in List II. Therefore, the Act stands upheld.
4. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Alert