Skip to content


HasinuddIn Khan and ors. Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal Nos. 1394 of 1974, 543 of 1975 and 242 of 1979 and Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2
Judge
Reported in(1980)3SCC285; [1980]2SCR1207; 1980(12)LC412(SC)
ActsUttar Pradesh High Court (Abolition of Letters Patent Appeals) Act, 1962; Uttar Pradesh High Court (Abolition of Letters patent Appeals) (Amendment) Act, 1972
AppellantHasinuddIn Khan and ors.;ram Pyare and anr.
RespondentDeputy Director of Consolidation and ors.;deputy Director of Consolidation, Lucknow and ors.
Appellant Advocate J.P. Goyal,; S.N. Andley,; R.N. Dikshit and;
Respondent Advocate A.P.S. Chauhan, ; V.C. Prashar and ; E.C. Agarwala, Advs.
Cases Referred and Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh and Ors.
Prior historyFrom the Judgments and Orders dated May 22, 1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals Nos. 502 and 682 of 1972 and 26 of 1973 and From the Judgment and Order dated May 22, 1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 469 of 1972
Excerpt:
- .....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.2. 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,3. 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.....
Judgment:

Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.

1. In view of the Judgment of this Court in State of Bombay v. Narothamdas, Jethabhai and Anr. : [1951]2SCR51 . Union of India v. Mohindra Supply Co. : [1962]3SCR497 and Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh and Ors. : [1968]2SCR95 . and in view of the fact that the Special Leave Petition 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 33 of 1972 is unconstitutional. The challenge to these Acts on the ground 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.

2. 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,

3. 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 condonation of delay in filing the Special Leave Petition- The petition for permission to urge additional grounds, except on Constitutional points, shall be treated as having been filed in the S.L.P. These three petitions will be listed before the Division Bench on 4-10-1979.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //