LexCHHOTABHAI JETHABAI PATEL AND CO. versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
476 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953] 1952 CHHOTABHAI JETHABAI PATEL AND CO. Dec. 2i. • v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (and other cases) (MEHR CHAND .MAHAJAN, 0HANDRASEKHARA AIYAR and BHAGWATI JJ.] ]fadhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Bights (Estates, Mahals and Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, ss. 3, 4-Bights t<nder con- tracts with proprietors for plucking tendu leaves, collecting lac, cutting ti1nber etc. - Whether vest in State-Nature of such contracts :-Indian Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930) s. 4 (3)-"Ft<ti.re goods", meaning of. The Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act of 1950 put an end to all proprietary rights ln estates, mahals and alienated villages situ- ated in the State and vested them in the State for the purposes of the State, free from all encumbrances. The petitioners, who had entered into various contracts and agreements \Vith the proprie- tors of the estates before the date on v-rhicb tl1e estates vested in the State under the Act (and some of them even before the 16th ?lfarch, 1950) under which they were entitled to pluck, collect and carry away tendu leaves, to cultivate, culture and acquire lac, and to cut and carry awa.y teak and titnber and other species of trees, applied for writs under art. 32 of the Constitution prohibit· ing the State from interfering with the rights they had acquired under the contracts with the proprietors: Held, (i) On a construction of the contracts in question, that the contracts '°vere in essence and effect licenses granted to the petitioners to cut, gather and carry away produce in the shape of tendu leaves, lac, timber, or wood and the petitioners 'vere neither proprietors nor persons having any interest in the proprieta~y rights through the proprietors, within the meaning of the Act; (ii) The rights of the petitioners were not encumbrances within the meaning of the expression "free from encumbrances'' in s. 3 (1) of the Act and the petitioners were entitled to a writ against .\he State prohibiting the State from interfering with· the rights of the petitioners under· the contracts which they had en- tered into with the proprietors. Mohanlal Hargovind v. Commissioner of Incmne-tax, 0. P. tf Berar (I.L .R. [1949] Nag. 892) referred td. Held also, thats. 4 (3l of the Indian Sale of Goods Act which lays clown that ·in the case of sale of future goods the contract ; _.., . S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 477 l952 amounts only to an. agreement. to sell did not apply to the con- tracts in the present case as "future goods" are defined in the Act as meaning goods to be manufactured or produced or acquired by Firm Chhotabhao the seller after making the contract of sale. • lethabai Patel ORIGINAL JuRISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 232, 233, 286, 309, 320, 351, 319, 350, 354 and 490 of 1951. Applications under article 32 of the Constitution for writs to enforce the fundamental rights of the peti- tioners . . C. K. Daphtary (R. M. Bajarnavis, with him) for the petitioner in Petition No. ~3;3. M. C. Setalvad (G. N. Joshi and R. M. Hajarnavis, with him) for the petitioner in Petition No. 233. R. M. Hajarnavis for the petitioners in Petitions Nos. 286, 309 and 320. V. N. Swami for the petitioners in Petitions Nos. 350 and 351. N. S. Bindra (R. S. Narula, with him) for the peti- tioners in Petitions Nos. 319, 354 and 490. T. L. Shivde, Advocate-General of Madhya Pradesh, for the respondent in all the petitions, the State of . Madhya Pradesh. 1952. December 22. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by OHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR J.-These are petitions under article 32 of the Constitution of India for directions or orders or writs to enforce the funda- mental rights of the petitioners to property by pro- hibiting the respondent, the State of Madhya Pradesh, from enforcing their alleged rights under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950. The several petitioners entered into contracts and agreements with the previous proprietors of certain estates and mahals in the State under which it is said they acquired the rights to pluck, collect and carry away tendu leaves, to cultivate, culture :.nd acquire lac, and to cut and carry away teak and timber and miscellaneous species of trees called hardwood and and Co. v. The State of M:adhy!l Prade&h. 478 SUPREME OOUR'i' REPoli'i'S (1953j 1952 bamboos. The contracts . and agreements are in . ~ .
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.