- (1.)Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 30th June, 2006 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in F.M.A. No.2051 of 2003. A recital of the facts in Civil Appeal No.8129 of 2009 would suffice for the purpose of adjudication of both the appeals.
(2.)The impugned order passed by the High Court was on the basis of a remand made by this Court by its order dated 22nd February, 2000 in Civil Appeal No.1680 of 1994. As the case has a long and chequered history, the relevant facts can be conveniently recapitulated from the aforesaid order of this Court, the relevant part of which is extracted below:
"The great grandfather of Syed Fatyeb Ali Meerza (hereinafter referred to as ('the Writ Petitioner') was the independent ruler of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa in the year 1891. With the advent of the British Rule he entered into an agreement on 12th March, 1891. According to the writ Petitioner as per his indenture the properties mentioned therein were to be enjoyed by the Nawab Bahadur and his heirs and successors in perpetuity. One change which was made was that instead being regarded as the Nawab Nazam of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa he was to have the title of Nawab Nizam of Murshidabad. The first Nawab died in the year 1908 and he was succeeded by his elder son Wasif Ali Meerza.

In 1933 the management of the Estate of the Nawab of Murshidabad was taken over under the Murshidabad Estate Administration Act, 1933. According to the writ petitioner this management was assumed for and on behalf of the Nawab and for the benefit of the Murshidabad family.

The Second Nawab Wasif Ali Meerza died in the year 1959 and his eldest son Waris Ali Meerza succeeded him as the third Nawab of Murshidabad. This Nawab died in the year 1969. According to the writ petitioner the third Nawab did not leave any male heir who could legitimately succeed Waris Ali Meerza (the second Nawab of Murshidabad), he was therefore entitled to succeed and be recognised as Nawab Bahadur.

. . .

. . .

. . .

In the meantime Murshidabad Estate Trust Act, 1963 was enacted for the purpose of creation of a trust in respect of the properties enjoyed by the second Nawab of Murshidabad. This trust was created for the benefit of his sons and daughters including the writ petitioner. For the purposes of this appeal we may only note that apart from right of residence in at least one of the properties of the second Nawab the writ petitioner was also entitled to receive a monthly sum from the income of the trust. This Act clearly stated that the allowances which were payable were heritable and one of the persons to whom this allowance was to be paid was Muzafar Jah Syed Sajid Ali Meerza. He was stated to be the son of the second Nawab by his wife by muta marriage.

Further difficulties for the Murshidabad family arose with the enactment of the Murshidabad Estate (Management of Properties) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1980. Through the preamble of the act stated that it was to provide for the management of the properties of the Murshidabad Estate, what in fact it did was that by virtue of Section 3 of the said Act the properties of the Murshidabad Estate were transferred to the Government. Sub-section (2) of Section 3 provided that with the transfer of the said properties the State Government could take such steps as it considered necessary for securing the possession thereof.

The writ petitioner then filed a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Calcutta High Court, inter alia, challenging the validity of the 1980 Act.....

The Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court came to the conclusion, repelling the contention raised on behalf of the respondent, that the writ petitioner has a locus standi to file writ petition. Three sections, namely, Sections 10 and 12 were struck down and the writ petition was disposed of.

Both the writ petitioner as well as the State of West Bengal filed appeals before the Division Bench. By the impugned judgment dated 22nd December, 1992 the Division Bench has come to the conclusion that the writ petitioner had no locus standi to file the writ petition. It, therefore, did not go into the other contentions which had been raised in the appeal.

Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza then filed the present appeal before this Court by Special Leave. During the pendency of this appeal Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza died on 3rd January, 1998. Two applications have been filed; one IA No.4 of 1998 by Sajid Ali Mirza and the other being IA No.5 of 1998 by Syed Mohammed Abbas Ali Meerza claiming the same relief of being substituted as the legal representative of Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza. Sajid Ali Meerza, the applicant in IA No.4 of 1998 is claiming to be the legal representative on the basis of being the son by muta marriage of the second Nawab, Wasif Ali Meerza. The applicant in IA No.5 of 1998, namely, Syed Mohammed Abbas Ali Meerza is claiming to be the legal representative on the basis of his being the son of the daughter of the second Nawab Wasif Ali Meerza.

As there is dispute between the two applicants as to who is entitled to become the legal representative of Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza, for the purposes of this appeal only we bring both of them on record as the legal representative of Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza, but this is subject to the outcome of any other proceedings including the decision by the High Court with regard to their status qua Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza. As far as this appeal is concerned their interest is not in conflict because both of them contend that Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza had the locus standi to file the writ petition in the Calcutta High Court and the view of the Division Bench to the effect that Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza had no locus standi is not correct.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and it appears to us, without going into the contentions of merits raised in the writ petition, that Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza did have the locus standi to file the writ petition. It cannot be disputed that under the 1963 Act Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza was entitled to some benefit in his own right............ In as much as the 1980 Act affected the benefits which Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza was entitled to under the 1963 Act, he certainly had the locus standi to file the Writ Petition. The decision of the Calcutta High Court to the contrary in this regard is fallacious.

For the aforesaid reasons this Appeal is allowed, impugned judgment of the Calcutta High Court in F.M.A.T. No.484 of 1991 is set aside. The said appeal is restored to the file of the High Court. The High Court will now decide the said Appeal afresh and will also decide as to who can be substituted as the legal representative in place of Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza.

There will be no order as to costs."

(3.)It would, thus, appear from the aforesaid order dated 22nd February, 2000 that what was required to be decided by the High Court in terms of the aforesaid order was whether the appellant in Civil Appeal No.8129 of 2009 - Syed Mohammed Abbas Ali Meerza or the legal heirs of the second claimant Sajid Ali Meerza (died in the meantime) who are appellants in Civil Appeal No.8130 of 2009 are the legal representatives of Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza, the original writ petitioner, who had challenged the validity of the Murshidabad Estate (Management of Properties) and Miscellaneous Premises Act, 1980 (West Bengal Act XV of 1980) (for short "1980 Act") before the High Court. On the basis of the decision on the said question, the High Court thereafter was required to decide on the merits of the challenge as regards the validity of the aforesaid Act of 1980.