Ramchandra Reddy v. Shankaramma .

Acts/Rules/Orders: Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952 - Section 13; Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1884 - Section 15; Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, 1358 ;Constitution of India - Article 132, Constitution of India - Article 133, Constitution of India - Article 226

Case Note:Constitution - Leave to appeal - Petition for

leave to appeal to Supreme Court, and a certificate under Articles. 132 and 133

of Constitution - Whether case involved a substantial question

of law as to interpretation of the Constitution - Held, in present case, no

doubt, Article 226 of Constitution covers only writs in nature of 'quo warranto'

also other writs - Applying principle contained in Section 15 of Supreme Court

of Judicature Act, 1884 Court was of opinion that term 'civil proceeding' in

Article 133 of Constitution would apply - Therefore, certificate was granted to

Petitioner under 133C1. (1) of the Constitution.ORDER

1. This is a petition for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, and a certificate under Arts. 132 and 133 of the Constitution is prayed for.

2. For the purposes of Article 132, Cl. (1), we have to decide whether the case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution. In the judgment under consideration, we find that Section 13, (Hyderabad) Atiyat Enquiries Act of 1952 has been held 'ultra vires' of the Constitution. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this is a case which involves a substantial question as to the interpretation of the Constitution. In our opinion, a certificate under Article 132, CI. (l) should be granted to the Petitioner.

3. With regard to Article 133, CI. (l)(a), it is admitted by the parties that the value of the subject-matter of the dispute is above Rs. 20,000. It is also clear that the High Court by the judgment under consideration has disagreed with the judgment of the Honorable the Revenue Minister and therefore, under the provisions of the said Article, leave must be granted inasmuch as there is a difference of opinion. The question whether passing of orders by this High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is a 'civil proceeding' for the purposes of the said Article was argued before us. Shri Sadashive Rao, the learned Advocate for the counter-Petitioners argued that this Article applies only to cases in which the High Court exercises jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure in cases of regular appeals. No doubt, it is a moot point. We have considered the point very carefully. We are of the opinion that the question whether it is a civil proceeding or not should be decided taking into view the nature of the proceeding. It is clear that the proceeding before the High Court were not of a criminal nature. The property which is the subject-matter of the dispute consists of lands, house and other movable and immovable property. The question as to who should get the income or a share of the income of the Jagir belonging to the family is also involved. Under take-provisions of Section 21 (2), Hyderabad (Abolition of Jagirs) Regulation, claims relating to at Jagir or to any share in the income thereof love been made the subject-matter of civil litigation and it has been laid down that all such claims shall be filed in and decided by the appropriate civil Court. Thus it is clear that the subject-matter of the dispute involves proceeding a civil nature. Section 15, Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1884, reads as follows:"15. 'Proceedings' in 'quo warranto' shall be 'deemed to be civil proceedings, whether for purposes of appeal or otherwise."

No doubt, Article 226 of the Constitution covers not only writs in the nature of 'quo warranto' but also other writs. Applying the principle contained in Section 15 above-mentioned, we are of the opinion that the term 'civil proceeding' in Article 133 of the Constitution will apply to civil writs issued; under Article 226. We, therefore, also grant a certificate to the Petitioner under 133, Cl. (1) of the Constitution. A certificate be, therefore, accordingly granted.