AZMATUNNISA BEGUM AND OTHERS Vs. OSMAN YAR KHAN AND OTHERS
LAWS(APH)-1963-12-13
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 20,1963

Azmatunnisa Begum And Others Appellant
VERSUS
Osman Yar Khan And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

GOPAL RAO EKBOTE,J. - (1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the order dated 10-12-1960 of the Board of Revenue and the order dated 14-3-1961 of the Government are challenged.
(2.) The necessary facts are that one Moiuddoula, who was a jagirdar, also owned a maktha ad measuring about 100 bighas dry and 40 bighas wet. The said Moiuddoula, it is alleged, had three wives. The 1st petitioner claims herself to be the third wife and petitioners 2 to 7 are her sons and daughters from Moiuddoula. Respondents 1 to 5 are the sons and daughters of the other two wives of moiuddoula. The said Mohiuddoula died on 8th Mehr, 1342 F. After his death the nizam had constituted a Committee to enquire into the property of the late jagirdar and also to determine who are the heirs entitled to his property. The Committee seems to have concluded its work but before it was put into execution the Sarf e-khas was merged and consequently the whole matter again went back to Nazim-e-Atiyat. The petitioner and her sons and daughter filed a claim before the Nazim-e-Atiyat claiming that the maktha in question belongs to the petitioners and they are entitled to it, while the respondents claimed that the petitioner is not the widow of Moiuddoula and the other petitioners are not his heirs and that the respondents being the legal heirs of Moiuddoula are entitled to Maktha. Nazim-e-Atiyat through his order dated 18th January 1955 dismissed the claims set up by both the petitioners as well as the respondents. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal to the Board of revenue. The respondents Nos. 1 to 5, however, went in appeal. The board of Revenue on 14th March, 1958 allowed their appeal and remanded the matter to the Nazim-e-Atiyat. Nazim-e-Atiyat issued notices even to the petitioners. On their appearance the respondents took an objection that as the judgment of the Nazim-e-Atiyat dated 18-1-1955 became final as far as the petitioners are concerned inasmuch as they did not prefer any appeal to the Board of Revenue, they cannot be parties to further enquiry in pursuance of the remand order. That petition was resisted by the petitioners. The Nazim-e-Atiyat, however, upheld the objection raised by the respondents and struck out the petitioners from that enquiry. Dissatisfied with that order dated 19-8-1959 of the Nazim-e-Atiyat the petitioners went in appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue agreed with the conclusion of the Nazim-e-Atiyat and dismissed the appeal of the petitioners on 10-12-1960. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision petition before the Minister, who refused to hear the revision petition through an order dated 14th March, 1961 stating that under the Act he does not have any jurisdiction to hear the revision petition. It is this order of the Minister and that of the Board of Revenue that are impugned in this writ application.
(3.) In the prayer part of the petition what is sought is the quashing of the orders of the Board of Revenue and that of the Minister. The writ of Mandamus is not sought as against the Minister on the ground that he has unlawfully refused to exercise the revisional jurisdiction which he has.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.