This appeal arises out of the application to the High Court dated the 28th July, 1950, challenging the validity of the order dated the 23rd July, 1950, issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Gaya.
On the 14th May, 1950, Kumar Rani again came back to India under a permanent permit obtained from the High Commissioner for India in Pakistan.
Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
Appeals under Articles 132 1 and 133 1 c of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Decree dated the 13th October 1950 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Miscellaneous Judicial Cases Nos.
97 to the High Court to submit a finding and directed that on the receipt of the finding both the appeals Appeals Nos.
These two companynected appeals came up for hearing be fore this Court on the 26th and 27th October, 1953.
The finding has number been received and the appeals have been re heard.
This permit was, however, cancelled on the 12th July, 1950, by the Deputy High Cominissioner,on the ground that this was wrongly issued, without the companycurrence of the Government, a. , required by the rules made under the Influx from Pakistan Control Act, 1949.
97 and 98 of 1952.
She appointed, herself as the sole mutwalli for her life time or until relinquishment, and her three sons to succeed her as joint mutwallis.
Both these applications were allowed by the High Court and hence these appeals by the State on leave granted by the High Court.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India G. N. Joshi, Lal Narain Sinha and P. G. Gokhale with him , for the appellant in C.A. Nos.
He took possession thereof between the 20th September and 2nd October, 1949.
This Court accordingly re manded Appeal No.
In December, 1948, she returned to India from Pakistan on a temporary permit and went back to Pakistan in April, 1949.
97 and 98 of 1952.
The first three respondents in Appeal No.
I to 4.
In view of this cancellation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Gaya, issued numberice to Kumar Rani directing her that since her permanent permit had been cancelled, she should leave lndia by the 31st July, 1950.
Kumar Rani was admittedly born in the territory of India and claims to be the lawfully wedded wife of Captain Maharaj Kumar Gopal Saran Narayan Singh of Gaya by virtue of an alleged marriage between them in 1920 according to Arya Samaj rites and subsequently according to Muslim rites, She owned and 1261 possessed companysiderable properties.
97 and 98 should be heard together.
In view of these happenings two applications were filed before the High Court of Patna, one dated the 5th July, 1950, challenging the validity of the action taken by the Deputy Custodian declaring the wakf estate as evacuee property and taking posses 1262 sion thereof on the basis of that declaration, and another application dated the 28th July, 1950, challenging the validity of the order of the Sub Inspector of Police, Gaya, directing Kumar Rani to leave India.
This order is challenged on the ground that Kumar Rani was, and throughout companytinued to be, a citizen of India and 1263 that the order dated the 23rd July, 1950, which, in substance, amounted to an order of her externment from India, was in violation of Kumar Ranis fundamental right under article 19 of the Constitution as a citizen of India.
Sen and I. N. Shroff, for the respondents Nos.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
The first of these applications was filed by Kumar Rani along with her three sons as petitioners and the second by Kumar Rani alone.
140 and 107 of 1950.
The applications before the High Court arose with reference to action taken against 1 the property, and 2 the person, of Kumar Rani by the Officers of the Government of Bihar, under the following circumstances.
97 are the sons of the fourth respondent therein, viz.
On the 21st June, 1949, the Bihar Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949 Bihar Ordinance No.
The State of Bihar is the appellant in both the appeals.
The Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property issued a numberification on the 2nd September, 1949, under section 5 of this Ordinance, declaring all the properties companyprised in the abovementioned wakf estate to have vested in the Custodian as being evacuee property.
February 10.
In July, 1948, Kumar Rani went to Karachi.
The other respondents in both the appeals are Government Officers under the appellant, the State of Bihar.
III of 1949 came into force.
The said Kumar Rani is also the first respondent in Appeal No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNADHADAS J. These are two companynected appeals arising out of a. companymon judgment of the High Court of Patna on two applications to it dated the 5th July, 1950 and 28th July, 1950, under article 226 of the Constitution.
98 which raises the fundamental question as to the companytinuing citizenship of Kumar Rani will be taken up first.
The deed also provided that the net income was to be spent for the maintenance of herself and her three sons with the direction that number more than half should be spent by the wakifa for her own use.
Kumar Rani Sayeeda Khatoon hereinafter referred to as Kumar Rani .
In 1946 she created a wakf of her properties companysisting of 427 villages for the maintenance and support of herself, her sons and their descendants, by executing a deed of Wakf ulalAulad dated the 4th May, 1946, by which she divested herself of all her interest in the said properties and vested them in Almighty God.
