Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Syed Mohammad Abbas Ali Meerza vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 December, 2017
Author: Patherya
Bench: Patherya
1
6
sandip
F.M.A. 2051 of 2003
Ct. 08 With
04.12.17 C.A.N. 10667 of 2014
Syed Mohammad Abbas Ali Meerza
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Debu Adhikari,
Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh,
Ms. Saptamita Pramanick ... for the appellant.
Mr. A. C. Kar, Sr. Adv.,
Mr. Anirban Kar,
Mr. Swapan Kr. Majumder,
Mr. Karan Daga ... for the applicant.
CAN 10667 of 2014 has been filed by Syed
Shansha Ali Meerza, seeking to be added as an
appellant to F.M.A. 2051 of 2003 based on the law of
primogeniture and being added should be allowed to
proceed with the appeal filed. On the contrary Syed
Mohammed Abbas Ali Meerza is not entitled to any of
the benefits from the Estate of Murshidabad on the
basis of the said law.
One Fateyab Ali Meerza filed C.R. 10165 (W) of
1981 and in the said writ petition he challenged the
Murshidabad Estate (Trust) Act, 1963, Murshidabad
Act (Trust) (Amendment) Act, 1963 and Murshidabad
Estate (Management and Properties) and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1980. The orders passed therein are not
2
relevant to the issue before us. Undoubtedly, Fateyab
Ali Meerza died in 1998 and before he died in 1994 he
filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court
of India, and during the said Special Leave Petition he
died and that is the reason two contenders came forth
to pursue the said proceedings, one was Sajid Ali
Meerza, the applicant in I.A. No. 4 of 1998 and Syed
Mohammad Abbas Ali Meerza, the applicant in I.A. No.
5 of 1998. Both the interim applications were heard
and disposed of by the order dated 13th August, 2014,
the Supreme Court of India passed as follows :-
"In view of the fact that the appellant Syed
Mohammed Abbas Ali Meerza is the son of Syed
Md. Sadeque Ali Meerza, who is a lineal descent
from the second son of the original Nawab, we
hold that the appellant Syed Mohammed Abbas
Ali Meerza is entitled to step into the shoes of the
deceased petitioner Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza as
his lawful legal heir so as to pursue the
proceedings presently pending before the High
Court. Consequently, we allow Civil Appeal No.
8129 of 2009 while dismissing Civil Appeal No.
8130 of 2009."
3
From a perusal of the said penultimate
paragraph of the said appeal filed before the Supreme
Court, the Supreme Court held that the appellant Syed
Mohammad Abbas Ali Meerza would be entitled to step
into the shoes of the deceased Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza.
Therefore, this proceeding before this Court is to be
persuaded by none other than the appellant Syed
Mohammad Abbas Ali Meerza. As we find no reason to
contradict the order dated 13th August, 2014 and even
if we wanted to do so, we are bound by the said order.
Therefore, the appeal must be persuaded by Syed
Mohammad Abbas Ali Meerza and although the
applicant of CAN 10667 of 2014 submits that Syed
Shansha Ali Meerza be added as a party in the appeal
before us, the said in view of the order dated 13th
August, 2014 cannot be allowed.
Counsel for the applicant in CAN 10667 of
2014 alternatively, sought to be arrayed as a
respondent and we also thought to give him an
opportunity to intervene in the appeal before us but this too cannot be granted as the applicant is a foreigner and a Canadian resident. Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza had initiated the writ proceedings and under 4 Article 226 of the Constitution of India it must be a citizen of India, who must pursue such writ petition and it is because of this reason that the contention of the applicant Syed Shansha Ali Meerza cannot be accepted and therefore is rejected and the application is also dismissed.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings.
(Patherya, J.) (Rajasekhar Mantha, J.) 5