ABIDA KHATOON Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by Smt. Abida Khatoon and her husband Abdul Shakoor against the decision of the IInd Additional Civil Judge, Agra dismissing their suit for a declaration that they are Indian citizens not liable to be deported to Pakistan. In their plaint the appellants made the following allegations: They were born and brought up at Agra and their parents too were born there. They were citizens of India at the commencement of the Constitution and have continued to enjoy this status ever since. In February, 1950, both of them went on a visit to Pakistan but without any intention to migrate or settle there permanently. After staying in Pakistan for some time they were anxious to return to India and applied to the Refugee department of the Pakistan Government for repatriation to India under the Delhi agreement of 1950 (the so called Nehru-Liaqat Pact). Under that agreement the Governments of India and Pakistan had agreed to the return of the nationals who had fled to one country but desired to return home. The Muslims of Uttar Pradesh who went to West Pakistan between February and May 1950 were eligible for repatriation under this agreement, but the plaintiffs were unable to get a permanent permit enabling them to return. They could not secure accommodation in the special trains which were being run to transport refugees back to India, nor a permit for permanent return. But they did not give up their Indian nationality nor acquire any foreign nationality voluntarily. After this they signed some papers or forms in Pakistan but, being illiterate, did not know the nature of the documents they were signing. The plaint did not give the exact date when the appellants returned to India, but it was stated that on their return the appellants applied for permission to re-settle in India permanently, but their request was not granted. The State and its officials were threatening to deport the plaintiffs and on 1-3-51 the final orders of the State requiring them to leave India were communicated to them. The appellants moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for relief but they were asked to obtain a declaration from the Civil Court; hence this suit. The appellants contended that their threatened deportation was illegal and infringed their constitutional rights as citizens. Since January, 1954, they had been living in this country and their visa was being continuously extended by the State Government; but in view of the imminent threat of deportation, the plaintiffs asked for a declaration that they are Indian citizens not liable to be deported to Pakistan.

(2.) The suit was resisted both by the Union of India and the State of U. P. but a common written statement was filed. This is a very unsatisfactory document containing evasive replies, vexatious and frivolous denials, and vague allegations. Apart from a bare assertion that the plaintiffs are nationals of Pakistan, the case of the state was not clearly stated. The question in issue was whether the plaintiffs ever lost their citizenship of India, but apart from an allegation in paragraph 17 of the additional pleas that the plaintiffs came to Agra on 17th January, 1953, as nationals of Pakistan on a temporary Pakistan Passport there are no particulars of how and when the plaintiffs ceased to be citizens of India.

(3.) The plaintiff Abida Khatoon deposed before the trial Court that she was born in Agra and that she and her husband did not go to Pakistan with any intention of settling there permanently. She explained that she went to Pakistan on receiving information that her brother who lived in Karachi was seriously ill. She was accompanied by her husband and children but left all her belongings in India. On reaching Pakistan she found her brother suffering from a serious illness of which he died ten months later. After his death there was no occasion for the plaintiffs to remain in Pakistan and she made attempts to return. Ultimately a friend whom they had known in Agra asked her to put her thumb impressions on two applications which she did without understanding their contents. After obtaining permission they returned to India and have continued to live there ever since. On one or two occasions a police official asked her why she had not reported her movements to the police but she replied that this was not necessary as she was a permanent resident of India. A police inspector advised her to get her visa extended and she sent her passport to the Government at Luck-now with an application for extension.