High CourtDivision Bench1979-09-13Appeals and Special Leave Petition dismissed; n...

Hasinuddin Khan and Anr. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors.

Case / Petition Number:Civil Appeal Nos. 1394/74, 543/75 and 242/79; Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2152 of 1974

Neutral Citation:/null

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Y. V. Chandrachud
V. R. Krishna Iyer
N. L. Untwalia
B. P. Shinghal
A. D. Koshal
Judgment Date: 1979-09-13
Court Decision / Holding: Civil Appeals and the Special Leave Petition are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The Court may condone the delay in filing the SLPs and allow the appellants to seek special leave to appeal from the Allahabad High Court’s merits decision, but only on constitutional points.
Final Disposition: Appeals and Special Leave Petition dismissed; no costs; delay may be condoned and additional constitutional grounds may be urged on SLP, if desired.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Hasinuddin Khan
Anr.

Respondents

Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• J. P. Goyal
• S. K. Jain
• S. N. Andey
• Uma Datta
• Tara Chand Sharma
• R. N. Dixit
• G. S. Chaterjee (for SLP No. 2152/74)

Counsels for Respondents

• A. P. S. Chauhan
• V. C. Prashar
• E. C. Agarwala

Case Synopsis & Summary

Hasinuddin Khan and Anr. challenged the validity of the Uttar Pradesh High Court Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals Act, 1962 and its Amendment Act 33 of 1972, arguing that these statutes were unconstitutional and altered the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court in a manner violative of the Constitution. The Allahabad High Court had upheld the Acts, and the appellants challenged this decision before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals Nos. 1394/74, 543/75, 242/79, and SLP No. 2152/74. The Supreme Court, relying on the earlier rulings in State of Bombay v. Narothamdas, Union of India v. Mahindra Supply Co., and Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh & Ors., held that neither Act is unconstitutional. It affirmed that the Court possesses inherent powers to condone delay and permit the urging of additional grounds, though such grounds would be limited to constitutional points in this context. The Court noted that counsel for the appellants fairly conceded the constitutional position. Consequently, the Civil Appeals and the Special Leave Petition were dismissed, with no order as to costs. The judgment also indicated that delay in filing SLPs could be condoned and that appellants may seek special leave to appeal from the Allahabad High Court’s merits decision, if desired.

Provisions of Law Cited

U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1912U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act, 1972 (Act 33 of 1972)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Inherent powers of the Court
Condonation of delay in filing petitions / SLPs

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the Uttar Pradesh High Court Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals Act, 1962 and the 1972 Amendment Act were unconstitutional and violative of the Constitution. They argued that the change in appellate jurisdiction and the manner in which Letters Patent Appeals are treated undermine constitutional safeguards and basic rights; they urged that the Acts exceed legislative competence and upset the traditional appellate framework. They sought relief on grounds of unconstitutionality.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defended the Acts as valid exercises of constitutional authority, arguing that the Acts fall within the inherent powers of the Court to regulate its own procedure and jurisdiction. They contended that the earlier decisions recognizing and upholding the Acts should guide the Court, and that any delays could be condoned under the Court’s discretion. They maintained that no constitutional invalidity was shown and urged dismissal of the appeals and the SLPs.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Bombay v. Narothamdas, Jethabhai & Anr.	[1951] S.C.R. 51	Positive	Cited and followed to support the Court’s reasoning on inherent powers and constitutional challenges.
Union of India v. Mahindra Supply Co.	[1962] 3 S.C.R. 497	Positive	Cited and followed as authority for the constitutional validity of the Acts.
Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh & Ors.	[1968] 2 S.C.R. 95	Positive	Cited and followed in the Court’s reasoning.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Hasinuddin Khan and Anr. v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

1207 HASINUDDIN KHAN AND ANR. **A** _v._ DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS. _September_ 13, 1979 [Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., V. R KRISHNA IYER, N. L. UNTWALIA, **B** p, N. SHINGHAL AND A. D. KosHAL, JJ.] _U.P._ _High Court (Abolition_ _of_ _Letters Patent Appeals) Act,_ 1912 _and_ _U.P._ _**High**_ _**Court (AbOlition of Letters Patent Appeals)**_ _**(Aniendment)**_ _**Act, Act**_ **33** _**of**_ _**1972-Constitutional validity of-Inherent powers of Court**_ _**to**_ _**condone dtday**_ _**and**_ _**permit**_ _**addi:ion11(**_ _**evidence.**_ HELD: Neither the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appea;s) Art, 1962 nor the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act, 1962, is unconstitutional. [1208C] _State_ _of Bombay_ v. _Narothamdas,_ [1951] S.C.R. 51; _Union_ _of_ _lndia_ v. _Mahindra Supply_ _Co._ [1962] 3 S.C.R. 497 and _Ram Adhar Singh_ v. _Ramroop_ _Singh_ _&_ _Ors.,_ [1968] 2 S.C.R. 95; followed. **[The** **Court** **under** **its** **inherent powers condoned the delay** **in** **filira.g** **of** **S.L.P.** **challenging** **the** **decision of** **the** **High** **Court** **on** **merits** **and** **allowed** **the** **petitioner** **to** **urge** **additiona.1** **grounds** **except** **on** **constitutional** **points].** CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1394/74, 543/75 and 242/79. Appeals from the Judgment and Order dated 22-5-1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals Nos. 26/73, 682/72 and 502/72. AND . SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) No. 2152 of 1974. From the Judgment and Order dated 22-5-1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Sp!. Appeal No. 469 /72. _J.P._ _Goyal_ and S. _K._ _Jain_ for the Appellants in CA 1394/74. _G._ S. _Chaterjee_ for the Petitioners in SLP 2152/74. ## A. p. S. Chauhan and v. C. Prashar for the RR 3 & 4 in CA 1394 / 74, S. _N._ _And/ey,_ _Uma_ _Datta_ and _Tara_ _Chand_ _Sharma_ for the Appellants in CA 543/75. _R._ _N._ _Dixit_ for the Appellant in CA 242/79. _E._ C. _Agarwala_ for th• Re+ipondent in CA 543/75. # **c** **D** **E** **G** **H** 1208 STJPREME COURT REPORTS **(191i0]** **2** **l.C.R.** **A** The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C.J.-In view of the Judgment of this Court in _State of Bombay_ v. _Narothamdas, Jethabhai_ & _Anr.(')_ _Union_ _of India_ V· _Mahindra Supply Company(')_ and _Ram_ _Adhar Singh_ v. _Ramroop_ _Singh_ _&_ _Ors.(')_ and in view of the fact that the Special Leave Petition **B** filed against the judgment rendered by the High Court of Allahabad, upholding the validity of the 1962 Act was dismissed by the Constitution. Bench of this Court after an elaborate argument, there is no substance in the contention that either the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962 or the U.P. High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act, Act 33 of 1972 is un**C** constitutional. The challenge to these Acts on the gi-ound of their unconstitutionality is, therefore, rejected. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants have very fairly conceded that position. Accordingly, the Civil Appeals and the Special Leave Petition are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. **D** However, the appellants may, if so advised, ask for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the learned single judge. We are sure that the delay caused in filing the S.L.Ps in this Court will be condoned since the appellants were pursuing their remedy by filing these appeals in this Court. **E** Learned counsel for the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 543/75 says that the appellant has already filed special leave petition (Civil) No. 361 of 1976 in this Court challenging the decision of the learned single judge of the Allahabad High Court on the merits of the matter. He has also filed an application seeking leave of this Court for urging additional grounds and an application for coodonation of delay in filing **F** the Special Leave Petition- The petition for permission to nrge additional grounds, except on Constitutional points, shall he treated as having been filed in the S.L.P. These three petitions will be listed before the Division Bench Oil 4-10-1979. S.R. (l) [19511 SC. R. 51. (2) [19621 3 S.C.R. 497. (3) [1968! 2 S.C.R. 95.