PETITIONER:
SMT. FIRDOSH FATIMA (SINCE DEAD) ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SMT. FIRDOSH BEGUM (DEAD) & ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/02/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 1588 1996 SCC (2) 563
JT 1996 (2) 530 1996 SCALE (2)272
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1657 OF 1977
ORDER
These two appeals arise from a Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Hakim Singh vs. Shiv Sagar & Ors. [AIR 1973 Allahabad 596]. 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 snd enacted Section 4 thereof which reads as under:-
"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 Urban
Areas 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 March 17, 1866, read
with Clauses 7 and 17 of the U.P. High
Court’s (Amalgamation) Order, 1918, 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."
By operation of this enactment, the power to entertain letter patent appeal under Clause (10) of the Letters Patent dated March 17, 1866 read with Clause (17) of U.P. High Court’s (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 & Ors. vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors. [(1980) 3 SCC 285] by a Constitution Bench has already upheld the validity of the Act, following the ratio of this Court in State of Bombay vs. Narothamdas Jethabai & Anr. [(1951) SCR 51], Ram Adher Singh vs. Ramroop Singh & Ors. [(1968) 2 SCR 953 and Union of India vs. Mohindra Supply Co. [(1962) 3 SCR 497]. As a fact, this Court has upheld the validity of Section 3 of 1962 Act in Mohindra Supply Co.’s case. It was held thus:
"The challenge to these Acts on the
ground of the unconstitutionally is,
therefore, rejected."
In view of the decision of the Constitution Bench, the controversy no longer survives. The legislative competence in abolishing Letter Patents Appeals in respect of revenue and tenancy matters is covered under Section 4 of the said Act. They are under respective legative 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.
The appeal are accordingly dismissed. No costs.