SMT. FIRDOSH FATIMA (SINCE DEAD) ETC.versusSMT. FIRDOSH BEGUM (DEAD) AND ORS. ETC.

A             SMT. FIRDOSH FATIMA (SINCE DEAD) ETC.
                                v.
             SMT. FIRDOSH BEGUM (DEAD) AND ORS. ETC.

                              FEBRUARY 6, 1996

B    [K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)
                                                                                  ·-
        U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent) Appeals Act, 1962/U.P.
    Amendment Act 33 of 1972 :

C         S.4--Power to ente1tain-Letters Patent Appeals under Clause (JO) of
    Letters patent dated 17.3.1866 r/w clause ( 17) of U.P. High Court's (Amal-
    gamation) Order, 1948-Taken awaJ-No longer res integr~Amendment
    Act already upheld.

          Hasinuddin Khan & Ors. v. Dy. Director of Consolidation & Ors.,
D   [19801 3 sec 285 followed.

         State of Bombay v. Narothamdas Jethabai & Anr., [1951) SCR 51;
    Ram Adher Singh v:Ramroop Singh & Ors., [968) 2 SCR 95; Union of India
    v. Mohindra Supply Co., [1962) 3 SCR 497 and Hakim Singh v. Shiv Sagar
    & Ors., AIR (1973) All. 596, referred to.
E
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2194 of
    1977 Etc.      -

         From the Judgment and Order dated 11.4.77 of the Allahabad High
F   Court in S.A No. 129 of 1975.

          S.K. Dholakia, Aseem Mehrotra for P.K. Jain, S.K. Agnihotri, Ms.
    Bina Gupta, S.M. Jadhav for AS. Bhasme, S.K. Jain, Randhir Jain, AS.
    Pundir, S.K. Gambhir, Pramod Swarup, H.K. Puri, for the appearing
    parties.
G
          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         These two appeals arise from a Full bench judgment of the High
    Court of Allahabad in Hakim Singh v. Shiv Sagar & Ors., AIR (1973)
    Allahabad 596. The U.P. State Legislature enacted U.P. Amendment Act
H   33 of 1972 amending U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Ap-
                                     224
                     FIRDOSH FATIMA v. FIRDOSH BEGUM                         225

     peals) Act, 1962 and enacted Section 4 thereof which reads as under :          A

             "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 commence-
                                                                                    B
--           ment 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 Con-
             stitution, 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
                                                                                    c

             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)     D
             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.
                                                                                    E
             (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."
                                                                                    F
           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 &      G
     Ors. v. 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 v. Narothamadas Jethabai & Am:,
     [1951] SCR 51, Ram Adher Singh v. Ramroop Singh & Ors., [1968] 2 SCR
     95 and Union of India v. Mahindra Supply Co., [1962] 3 SCR 497. As a fact,
     this court has upheld the validity of Section 3 of 1962 Act in Mahindra        H
    226                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1996) 2 S.C.R.

A Supply Co. 's case. It was held thus :
             "The challenge to these Acts on the ground of .the unconstitution-
             ally is, therefore, rejected."

          In view of the decision of the Constitution bench, the controversy no
B   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 jurisdic~ion.and
    powers 'of all courts of administration of justice in the State of Uttar
C   Pradesh with respect to the matters in List II. Therefore, the Act stands
    upheld.

           The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
                                                                                     -
    G.N.                                                     · A~peals di~missed.
                                                            .     '      \




                                                                                     --