AHMADUNNISA BEGUM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, daughter of the late General His Exalted Highness Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan, the erstwhile Ruler of the Hyderabad State (hereinafter referred to as "the late Nizam) filed this petition challenging the certificate issued by the Government of India on 27/02/1967 under Art. 366 (22) of the Constitution of India to the 2nd respondent, His Exalted Highness Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan Bhadur (hereinafter referred to as "the Nizam) the grandson of the late Nizam, as being issued without the authority of law, is arbitrary, discriminatory and violate of the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Article 14, 19 (1) (f) and 31 (1) of the Constitution. The impugned certificate is given below: -

(2.) The petitioner stated that the late Nizam as the Ruler of the Hyderabad State, who having recognised on 23-11-1949 that the Constitution of India adopted by the Constituent Assembly of India shall be the Constitution for the State of Hyderabad as for the other parts of India and shall be enforced as such in accordance with the tenor of its provisions, entered into an agreement with the Government of India on the 25/01/1950, determining and guaranteeing the amount of the privy purse and the personal rights, privileges and dignities, including the dynastic succession. After the conclusion of that agreement, as and from 26/01/1950, except for the fact that he was appointed as the Raj Pramukh of Hyderabad as from that date, the late Nizam became a private citizen like any other person except for certain rights and privileges guaranteed to him under the aforesaid agreement with the Government of India. The agreement, according to the petitioner, guaranteed full ownership to his private properties. The late Nizam was therefore, till the date of his death on the 24/02/1967, was the owner and was in possession of the said properties, which included several immovable and extensive moveable properties, cash. Government securities, gold and silver bullion, ornaments and utensils, jewellery, antiques and pieces of art and loans and debentures etc. In view of this, it was averred that inasmuch as the late Nizam was a Muslim of Sunni sect, succession to his private properties, namely, the said moveable and immovable properties, should be governed by the Hanafi school of Muslim law: that as the late Nizam died intestate on 24-2-1967, leaving as his heirs two widows, two sons and the petitioner, they would, according to the said Muslim law, be entitled to certain shares, namely the widows 1/16th each, the two sons 2/5ths each in the remainder of 14/16th and the petitioner to 1/5th of that reminder, and that the Nizam (the 2nd respondent) not being an heir under that law, was not entitled to succeed to any part of the said estate. According to the petitioner, the impugned certificate purports to vary the normal rules of succession to the properties of a Muslim and deprives the petitioner and the other heirs of the late Nizam of their right to succeed to his estate. The petitioner further stated that the Government of India was not competent in law to issue the impugned certificate, interfering with, or depriving the petitioner and the other heirs of, their rights to succeed to the late Nizam under the personal law applicable to them. While his action of the Government of India, according to the petitioner, as has already been stated, is contrary to law, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the fundamental rights under Arts. 14, 19 (1) (f) and 31 (1) of the Constitution of India, she further alleges that it also infringed the principles of natural justice, because before depriving her of her rights as an heir to succeed to the private properties of her late father, it was incumbent upon the Government of India to have given notice to her and afforded an opportunity of being heard before issuing the certificate.

(3.) The 1st respondent, Union of India, contended that under Art. II of the agreement entered into between the late Nizam and the Government of India on 25/01/1950, full ownership, use and enjoyment of all the private properties both immovable and moveable, including jewellery, securities, etc., were guaranteed and in accordance with the terms of that article, an inventory of the properties which the late Nizam claimed to be his private properties was submitted by him, and after the same was considered by the 1st respondent and the Government of Hyderabad, they were declared to be his (late Nizams) private properties. The settlement of private properties of the Ruler, it is contended, was an act of State, and as such is not justiciable. After the death of the late Nizam on 24-2-1967, pursuant to Art. IV of the said agreement, the Nizam (the 2nd respondent) was declared to be his successor under Art. 366 (22) of the Constitution. It is further contended that consequent upon his succession to the Rulership of Hyderabad, the Nizam became the sole successor to all the personal rights and properties and assets of the late Nizam, which were recognised as the private properties of the Ruler of Hyderabad, and under the terms of the agreement aforesaid, he was entitled to full ownership, use and enjoyment of all such properties. Consequently, the certificate setting out the factual position was issued to the Nizam on the 27th of February, 1967. The full ownership, use and enjoyment of private properties by a Ruler having been guaranteed by the Government of India in pursuance of the said agreement, neither the agreement nor any dispute or obligation arising therefrom is justiciable by virtue of Art. 363 (1) of the Constitution. The allegations in respect of the heirs or the shares of each of them, or the parties being governed by the Hanafi school of Muslim law were denied for want of knowledge, and in any event were said to be irrelevant.