.JASODABAI & SMT. RAMCHANDRABAI versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 285 · Decided: 26-11-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

285 
A 
.JASODABAI & SMT. RAMCHANDRABAI 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. 
November 26, 1969 
B 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., A. N. GROVER, 
A. N. RAY, 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND I. D. DUA. JJ.J 
Constitution of India, Art. 133-Certificate-Circumstances in which 
High Court could not refuse certificate-Practice and Procedure-Refusal 
of certificate-Necessity for giving reasons. 
The appellants applied to the High Cou'rt for a certificate seeking to 
appeal against the judgment and order of the H;gh Court dismissing their 
petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Maharashtra Agricultural 
Lands (Ceilings on Hcldings) Act, 1961. The High Court had held that 
an earlier case had already laid down that the Act was saved by Art. 31A 
and that because of its inclusion in tho Ninth Schedule to Act enjoyed the 
protection of Art. 31B. The High Court refused the certificate and gave 
no reasons for the refusaL In qpell to this Court against the order 
refusing certificate it was urged that in view of the decision of this Court 
in Ramesh v. Seth Gendclal Motilal Patni the certificate ought to have 
been granted because the order was made in the exercise of extra-ordinary 
original jurisdiction in a civil proceeding and the valuatiC'ln of the claim , I 
was well over Rs. 20,000. 
HELD : (i) Article 133 is wide enough to take in civil proceedings 
decided in the High Court in the exercise of the extra-or<linary jurisdiction 
provided some civil right of the party is decided. 
The appellants were 
attempting to save their property by challenging the validity of the Act 
and the decision of the Court that the Act was valid directly affected the 
civil rights 
of the parties 
in properties well over the ma:rk in value. 
In these circumstances the High Court could not refuse the certificate. 
Ramesh v. Seth Gendalal Motilal Patni, [1966] 3 S.C.R. 198. 
' 
The case was not remanded for certification because it would be an 
exercise in futility to ask the High Court to certify the cases when the 
appeals that would follow must inevitably fail, as this Court had held the 
Act to be intra vires and it was protected by Art. 31B of the Constitution. 
State of Maharashtra 
v. 
Madhavrao Damodar Patllchand. 
[1968] 
3 S.C.R. 712 . 
. (iii) It is desirable to state in brief why the certificate is refused, since, 
much depends on whether the civil rights of the parties are passed on or 
not by the. judgment proposed to be appealed against. Again, if the court 
refused to exercise jurisdiction under Art. 226 without deciding the civil 
rights claimed, it is better to say so while refusing the certificate. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1554 
and 1555 of 1966. 
Appeals by special leave from the orders dated pecember 6, 
1965 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Misc. Civil 
Applications Nos. 170 and 172 of 1965. 
286 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1970] 3 S.C.R. 
G. L. Sanghi, D:N. Mishra, I. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur, 
and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants ( i,n: both the appeals)· 
M. S. K. Sastri and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents (in.both 
the appeals). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hidayatullah, C.J. 
This order ill govern the disposal of 
Civil Appeals Nos. 1554 and 1555 of 1966. 
The two appellants, seeking to appeal against the common 
judgment and order of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), 
September 10, 1965, in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Con-
stitution, applied to the Division Bench of the High Court for a 
certificate under Arts. 132 and 133(1) (a) or (b) and/or (c) of 
the Constitution. Their applications were summarily dismissed 
on December 6, 1965. 
The present two appeals (consolidated 
for hearing) are by special leave and are against the order refusing 
certificate. The appellants contend that they were entitled to a certi~ 
ficate as of right as laid down in Ramesh and Anr. v. Seth Genda-
/al Motilal Patni and Ors. (1) The other side opposes. 
The appellants and 3 others had, by their several petitions 
under Art. 226 of the Constitution asked that certain notices issued 
under s. 17 (2) of the Act for declaration of lands in excess of 
the ceilings as surplus and requiring that they be surrendered; be 
quashed on the ground that the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands 
(Ceilings on Holdings) Act 1961 (27 of 1961) offended Arts. 
14, 19 and 31 and was therefore void under Art. 13. The Divi-
sional Bench disposed of the five petitions by a common judgment
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.