{"id":252986,"date":"1961-03-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-03-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961"},"modified":"2016-08-07T22:43:01","modified_gmt":"2016-08-07T17:13:01","slug":"aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961","title":{"rendered":"Aniyoth Kunhamina Umma vs Ministry Of Rehabilitation … on 22 March, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Aniyoth Kunhamina Umma vs Ministry Of Rehabilitation … on 22 March, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 1616, 1962 SCR (1) 505<\/div>\n
Author: S Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Das, S.K., Sarkar, A.K., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nANIYOTH KUNHAMINA UMMA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMINISTRY OF REHABILITATION ANDOTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n22\/03\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nBENCH:\nDAS, S.K.\nSINHA, BHUVNESHWAR P.(CJ)\nSARKAR, A.K.\nAYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1962 AIR 1616\t\t  1962 SCR  (1) 505\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1962 SC1621\t (17,38,90)\n RF\t    1967 SC   1\t (57)\n\n\nACT:\nFundamental  Rights-Evacuee  Property-Declaration   becoming\nfinal-Writ    Petition\t in   Supreme\tCourt\t challenging\ndeclaration-Maintainability  of-Constitution of India,\tArt.\n32.<\/a>\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe petitioner's husband transferred certain property to the\npetitioner.  A notice under s. 7, Administration of  Evacuee\nProperty Act<\/a>, 1950, was issued to the petitioner and to\t her\nhusband\t and  the husband was declared an  evacuee  and\t the\nproperty  was declared as evacuee property by the  Assistant\nCustodian.  An appeal to the Deputy Custodian and thereafter\na  revision  petition  to  the\tCustodian  General  by\t the\npetitioner  were dismissed.  The petitioner applied  to\t the\nSupreme\t Court under Art. 32<\/a> of the Constitution  contending\nthat her fundamental rights under\n64\n506\nArts.  19(1)(f)\t and 31 were infringed by the order  of\t the\nAssistant  Custodian and prayed for the restoration  of\t the\nproperty.\nHeld, that the petition under Art. 32<\/a> was incompetent as  no\nquestion of violation of any fundamental right arose in\t the\ncase.\t The   decision\t of  an\t  authority   of   competent\njurisdiction  had  negatived  the  existence  of  the  right\nalleged by the petitioner and unless that decision was\theld\nto  be\ta  nullity or could be otherwise  got  rid  of,\t the\npetitioner  could  not\tcomplain of any\t infringement  of  a\nfundamental  right.   The alleged fundamental right  of\t the\npetitioner  was\t dependent  on whether her  husband  was  an\nevacuee and whether his property was evacuee property.\t The\ndecision on that question had become final and no question\nof lack of jurisdiction was involved.\nSahibzada  Saiyed Muhammed Amirabbas Abbasi v. The State  of\nMadhya Bharat<\/a>, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 138, applied.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 32 of 1959.
\nPetition  under\t Art. 32<\/a> of the Constitution  of  India\t for
\nenforcement of Fundamental Rights.\n<\/p>\n
V.   A. Seyid Muhamad, for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
N.   S.\t Bindra,  R.  H.  Dhebar and  T.  M.  Sen,  for\t the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
1961.  March 22.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nS.   K. DAS, J.-This is a writ petition under Art. 32<\/a> of the
\nConstitution.\tThe  relevant  facts  lie  within  a  narrow
\ncompass, and the short point for decision is whether in\t the
\ncircumstances of this case the petitioner can complain of an
\ninfringement  of  the fundamental rights guaranteed  to\t her
\nunder Arts. 19(1)(f) and 31 of the Constitution.
\nThe  relevant  facts are these.\t  The  petitioner’s  husband
\nKunhi Moosa Haji, it is alleged, carried on a hotel business
\nin Karachi which is now in Pakistan.  The petitioner  stated
\nthat  her  husband had been carrying on\t the  said  business
\nsince  1936.   It is not in dispute, however,  that  in\t the
\nrelevant year, that is, 1947, when the separate dominion  of
\nPakistan  was  set  up,\t the  petitioner’s  husband  was  in
\nKarachi.   The petitioner stated that at the end of  August,
\n1949, her husband returned to Malabar, in India.  On  behalf
\nof’  respondent\t no.  1,  the  Ministry\t of  Rehabilitation,
\nGovernment of India, it is averred that the petitioner’s
\n507<\/span>
\nhusband\t surreptitiously returned to India without  a  valid
\npassport   in\t1953  and  was\tarrested  for\tan   alleged
\ninfringement  of the provisions of the Foreigners  Act<\/a>.\t  On
\nDecember 7, 1953, Kunhi Moosa Haji transferred in favour  of
\nhis  wife his right., title and interest in seven  plots  of
\nland, details whereof are not necessary for our purpose.  On
\nDecember 8, 1954, about a year after the transfer, a  notice
\nwas  issued to both the petitioner and her husband  to\tshow
\ncause why Kunhi Moosa Haji should not be declared an evacuee
\nand his property as evacuee property under the provisions of
\nthe   Administration   of  Evacuee   Property\tAct<\/a>,   1950,
\n(hereinafter called the Act).  The petitioner’s husband\t did
\nnot appear to contest the notice, but the petitioner entered
\nappearance through her advocate.  By an order dated  January
\n29,  1955,  the\t Assistant Custodian  of  Evacuee  Property,
\nTellicherry,  declared that Kunhi Moosa Haji was an  evacuee
\nunder the provisions of s. 2(d)(1)<\/a> of the Act and the  plots
\nin  question were evacuee property within the meaning of  s.
\n2(f)<\/a>  of  the  Act.   From  this  decision  the\t  petitioner
\nunsuccessfully carried an appeal to the Deputy Custodian  of
\nEvacuee Property, Malabar, who affirmed the decision of\t the
\nAssistant  Custodian, Tellicherry, by his order\t dated\tJuly
\n11, 1955.  The petitioner then moved the Deputy Custodian of
\nEvacuee\t Property, Malabar, for a review of his order  under
\ns.  26(2) of the Act.  This petition also failed.  Then\t the
\npetitioner moved the Custodian-General of Evacuee  Property,
\nNew  Delhi,  in\t revision against the order  of\t the  Deputy
\nCustodian.   This  revision petition was  dismissed  by\t the
\nCustodian-General  by  his order dated April 9,\t 1956.\t The
\npetitioner  then  made\tan application to  the\tMinistry  of
\nRehabilitation\tfor an order of restoration of the  property
\nin  her favour under the provisions of s. 16(1)<\/a> of the\tAct.
\nThis  application  was also rejected.  The  petitioner\tthen
\nmoved  the High Court of Kerala by means of a writ  petition
\nunder  Art.  226<\/a> of the Constitution.\tThis  petition\twas,
\nhowever, withdrawn by the petitioner on the ground that\t the
\nKerala\tHigh Court had held in an earlier decision  reported
\nin
\n508<\/span>
\nArthur\tImport\t&  Export Company,  Bombay  v.\tColletor  of
\nCustoms,  Cochin  (1)  that when an  order  of\tan  inferior
\ntribunal  is carried up in appeal or revision to a  superior
\ntribunal  outside the court’s jurisdiction and the  superior
\ntribunal passes an order confirming, modifying or  reversing
\nthe  order,  the  High\tCourt cannot  issue  a\twrit  to  an
\nauthority  outside its territorial jurisdiction.   Then,  on
\nMarch  5,  1959,  the  petitioner  filed  the  present\twrit
\npetition  and  the  basis of her  contentions  is  that\t the
\nfundamental  rights guaranteed to her under  Arts.  19(1)(f)
\nand  31 of the Constitution have been infringed and  she  is
\nentitled to an appropriate writ or order from this Court for
\nthe  restoration of the property transferred to her  by\t her
\nhusband.\n<\/p>\n
In  her petition, the petitioner has contested the  validity
\nof  the notice issued on December 8, 1954, on the ground  of
\nnoncompliance with certain rules.  She has also contested on
\nmerits\tthe  correctness of the findings arrived at  by\t the
\nrelevant  authorities that Kunhi Moosa Haji was\t an  evacuee
\nand the property in question was evacuee property.   Learned
\nCounsel\t  for  the  petitioner\ttried  to  argue  that\t the
\ninvalidity  of the notice issued under s. 7<\/a> of the Act\twent
\nto the root of jurisdiction of the subsequent orders.  We do
\nnot,  however, think that any question of lack of  jurisdic-
\ntion  is involved in this case.\t The petitioner appeared  in
\nresponse to the notice and raised no point of  jurisdiction.
\nIn  subsequent proceedings before the Deputy  Custodian\t and
\nthe  Custodian General she contested the correctness of\t the
\norders\tpassed\ton merits: no question of  jurisdiction\t was
\ncanvassed  at any stage and we do not think that the  notice
\nsuffered from any such defect as would attract the  question
\nof  jurisdiction.  We need only add that no question of\t the
\nconstitutionality of any law is raised by the, petitioner.
\nIn the view which we have taken, this petition is  concluded
\nby the decision of this Court in Sahibzada Saiye-d  Muhammed
\nAmirabbas Abbasi v. The State of Madhya Bharat<\/a> (2) and it is
\nnot necessary to consider on merits the contentions urged on
\nbehalf\tof  the petitioner.  The position as we\t see  it  is
\nthis.  This Court
\n(1) (1958) 18 k.L.J. 198.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1960] 3 S.C. R. 138-\n<\/p>\n
509<\/span><\/p>\n
can exercise jurisdiction under Art. 32<\/a> of the\tConstitution
\nonly in enforcement of the fundamental rights guaranteed  by
\nPart  III  of the Constitution.\t In  the  present,case,\t the
\nappropriate authorities of competent jurisdiction under\t the
\nAct  have determined the two questions which fell for  their
\ndecision,  namely, (1) that Kunhi Moosa Haji was an  evacuee
\nwithin\tthe meaning of s. 2(d)<\/a> of the Act and (2)  that\t his
\nproperty   was\tevacuee\t property.   It\t was  open  to\t the
\npetitioner  to\tchallenge  the\tdecision  of  the  Custodian
\nGeneral, New Delhi, by moving the appropriate High Court  in
\nrespect thereof; it was also open to the petitioner to\tmove
\nthis  Court by way of special leave against the decision  of
\nthe   Custodian\t  General  or  of  the\t other\t appropriate
\nauthorities   under  the  Act.\t The  petitioner  did\tnot,
\nhowever’,  choose to do so.  The result, therefore, is\tthat
\nthe order of the custodian General has become final.   Under
\ns.  28 of the Act the order cannot be called in question  in
\nany court by way of an appeal or revision or in any original
\nsuit,  application or execution proceeding.  It is,  indeed,
\ntrue  that s. 28<\/a> of the Act cannot affect the power  of\t the
\nHigh Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution or of
\nthis  Court  under  Arts. 136 and 32  of  the  Constitution.
\nWhere,\thowever, on account of the decision of an  authority
\nof  competent  jurisdiction the right alleged by  the  peti-
\ntioner\thas been found not to exist, it is difficult to\t see
\nbow any question of the infringement of that right can arise
\nas   a\tground\tfor  a\tpetition  under\t Art.  32<\/a>   of\t the
\nConstitution,  unless  the  decision  of  the  authority  of
\ncompetent   jurisdiction  on  the  right  alleged   by\t the
\npetitioner  is held to be a nullity or can be otherwise\t got
\nrid  of\t As  long as that decision  stands,  the  petitioner
\ncannot complain of any infringement of a fundamental  right.
\nThe  alleged fundamental right of the petitioner  is  really
\ndependent  on  whether Kunhi Moosa Haji was an\tevacuee\t and
\nwhether\t his property is evacuee property.  If the  decision
\nof the appropriate authorities of competent jurisdiction  on
\nthese questions has become final and cannot be treated as  a
\nnullity\t or cannot be otherwise got rid of,  the  petitioner
\ncannot complain of any infringement of her
\n510<\/span>
\nfundamental right under Arts. 19(1)(f) and 31 of the
\nIt is worthy of note that the relevant provisions of the Act
\nhave not been challenged before us as unconstitutional,\t nor
\ncan it be seriously contended\t   before us that the orders
\nof the appropriate authorities under the Act can be  treated
\nas  null  and  void  for  want\tof  jurisdiction.   What  is
\ncontended  before  us is that the orders were  incorrect  on
\nmerits.\t  That is a point which the petitioner\tshould\thave
\nagitated  in an appropriate proceeding either by way  of  an
\nappeal from the order of the Custodian General with  special
\nleave  of this Court or by an appropriate proceeding in\t the
\nHigh  Court having jurisdiction over the Custodian  General.
\nThe petitioner did not take either of these steps, and we do
\nnot  think  that she can be permitted now to  challenge\t the
\ncorrectness  on\t merits\t of the orders\tof  the\t appropriate
\nauthorities  under the Act on a writ petition under Art.  32<\/a>
\nof the Constitution on the basis that her fundamental  right
\nhas been infringed.\n<\/p>\n
In  Sahibzada Saiyed Muhammed v. The State of Madhya  Bharat<\/a>
\n(1)  the facts were these.  The petitioner who had  migrated
\nto West Pakistan applied to the High Court of Madhya  Bharat
\nfor  a\twrit  of habeas corpus\tfor  directions\t to  produce
\npetitioners 2 and 3, his minor children, before the court on
\nthe allegation that they were wrongfully confined and,\tupon
\nthe  dismissal\tof the said application, be applied  to\t the
\nDistrict  Judge of Ratlam under the Guardian and  Wards\t Act<\/a>
\nfor  his appointment as guardian of the person and  property
\nof  the\t said  minors;\tthe  District  Judge  rejected\t the
\napplication  and appointed another person as  guardian;\t the
\npetitioner then appealed to the High Court against the order
\nof  the\t District Judge and that appeal was  dismissed.\t  He
\napplied\t for special leave to appeal to this Court and\tthat
\napplication  was  also\trejected.  Thereafter  be  moved  an
\napplication  under  Art. 32<\/a> of the Constitution and  it\t wag
\nheld  that  where on account of the decision of a  court  of
\ncompetent jurisdiction, the right alleged by the  petitioner
\ndoes  not  exist  and, therefore,  its\tinfringement  cannot
\narise,
\n(1)  [1960] 3 S.C.R. 138.\n<\/p>\n
511<\/span><\/p>\n
this  Court  cannot entertain a petition under Art.  32<\/a>\t for
\nprotection of the alleged right.  We are of the opinion that
\nthe  principle of this decision also applies to the  present
\ncase.  The circumstance that in Sahibzada Saiyed Muhammed v.
\nthe  State of Madhya Bharat<\/a> (1) an application\tfor  special
\nleave  was  made  and rejected makes no\t difference  to\t the
\napplication  of the principle.\tSo far as the  principle  is
\nconcerned,  the position is the same when an application  is
\nmade and rejected and when no application is made.  The\t re-
\nsult  in both cases is that the decision becomes  final\t and
\nbinding on the parties thereto.\t We must make it clear\tthat
\nwe are not basing our decision on the circumstance that\t the
\nHigh  Court  of\t Kerala\t rejected  the\tapplication  of\t the
\npetitioner  on\tthe  ground  that  it  had  no\t territorial
\njurisdiction.  We are basing our decision on the ground that
\nthe  competent\tauthorities  under the Act  had\t come  to  a
\ncertain\t decision, which decision has now become  final\t the
\npetitioner  not\t having moved against that  decision  in  an
\nappropriate court by an appropriate proceeding.\t As long  as
\nthat decision stands, the petitioner cannot complain of\t the
\ninfringement of a fundamental right, for she has no
\n,such right.\n<\/p>\n
We would, accordingly, dismiss the petition with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t      Petition dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(1) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 138.\n<\/p>\n
512<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Aniyoth Kunhamina Umma vs Ministry Of Rehabilitation … on 22 March, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 1616, 1962 SCR (1) 505 Author: S Das Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Das, S.K., Sarkar, A.K., Ayyangar, N. Rajagopala, Mudholkar, J.R. PETITIONER: ANIYOTH KUNHAMINA UMMA Vs. RESPONDENT: MINISTRY OF REHABILITATION ANDOTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/03\/1961 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-252986","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAniyoth Kunhamina Umma vs Ministry Of Rehabilitation ... on 22 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Aniyoth Kunhamina Umma vs Ministry Of Rehabilitation ... on 22 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1961-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-07T17:13:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Aniyoth Kunhamina Umma vs Ministry Of Rehabilitation … on 22 March, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-07T17:13:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961\"},\"wordCount\":1917,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961\",\"name\":\"Aniyoth Kunhamina Umma vs Ministry Of Rehabilitation ... on 22 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-03-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-07T17:13:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Aniyoth Kunhamina Umma vs Ministry Of Rehabilitation … on 22 March, 1961\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Aniyoth Kunhamina Umma vs Ministry Of Rehabilitation ... on 22 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Aniyoth Kunhamina Umma vs Ministry Of Rehabilitation ... on 22 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-07T17:13:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Aniyoth Kunhamina Umma vs Ministry Of Rehabilitation … on 22 March, 1961","datePublished":"1961-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-07T17:13:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961"},"wordCount":1917,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961","name":"Aniyoth Kunhamina Umma vs Ministry Of Rehabilitation ... on 22 March, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-03-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-07T17:13:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aniyoth-kunhamina-umma-vs-ministry-of-rehabilitation-on-22-march-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Aniyoth Kunhamina Umma vs Ministry Of Rehabilitation … on 22 March, 1961"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252986","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=252986"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/252986\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=252986"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=252986"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=252986"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}