MAHADEO versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY

Citation: [1959] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 339 · Decided: 09-03-1959 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2) S.C.R.. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
MAHADEO 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY 
(and connected petitions) 
339 
(S. R. DAs, C. J., S. K. J;>As, P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
K. N. WANCHOO and M. HrnAYATULLAH, JJ.) 
Fundamental Rights, Violation of-Agreement with Proprietors 
for grant of right to pick and carry away tendu leaves and other 
ancillary rights-N aturc of such rights-Non-Registration of agree-
ment-Effect-Abolition of proprietary rights in Estates, etc.-Non-
rccognition of the agreements by State, if violates fundamental rights 
-Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, r9r7 (Central Provinces II 
of r9r7), ss. 2(r3), 47(3), 202-Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Pro-
prietary Rights (Estates, M ahals, Alienated Lands) Act, r950 
(Madhya Pradesh I of r95r), ss. 2(6), 3, 4. 
Some of the proprietors of the former State of Madhya 
Pradesh granted to the several petitioners rights to take forest 
produce, mainly tendu leaves, from the forests included in the 
Zamindaris belonging to the proprietors. The agreements con-
veyed to the petitioners in addition to the tendu leaves other 
forest produce like timber, bamboo-s, etc., the soil for making 
bricks, and the right to build on and occupy land for the purpose 
of their business. These rights were spread over many years, 
but in the case of a few the period during which the agreements 
were to operate expired in 1955· Some of the agreements were 
registered and the others unregistered. After the coming into force 
of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, 
Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, the Government disclaimed 
the agreements and auctioned the rights afresh, acting under 
s. 3 of the Act under which "all proprietary rights in an estate 
......... in the area specified in the notification, vesting in a pro-
prietor of such estate ...... or in a person having interest in such 
proprietary right through the proprietor, shall pass froJU such 
proprietor or such other person to and vest in the State for the 
purposes of the State free of all encumbrances". 
The petitioners filed petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitu-
tion of India challenging the legality of the action taken by the 
Government on 'the ground that it was an invasion of their 
fundamental rights. They contended (1) that the Government 
stepped into the shoes of the quondam proprietors and was bound 
by the agreements into which the latter had entered, before their 
proprietary rights were taken over by the Government, (2) that 
the petitioners were not proprietors as defined in the Act and 
therefore ss. 3 and 4 of the Act did not apply to them, (3) that 
the agreements were in essence and effect licenses granted to 
them to cut, gather and carry away the produce in the shape of 
I959 
March 9. 
1959 
Mahadeo 
v. 
The Stnte of 
Bombay 
340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1959] Supp. 
tendu leaves, or lac, or timber or wood, (4) that the agreements 
granted no 'interest in land' or 'benefit to arise out of land' 
and that object of the agreements could only be described as sale 
of goods as defined in the Indian Sale of Goods Act, and (5) that 
the interest of the petitioners was not proprietary right but only 
a right to get goods in the shape of leaves, etc. 
The petitioners 
relied on the decision in FirmChhotabhai ]ethabai Patel and Co. v. 
The State of Madhya Pradesh, [1953] S.C.R. 476. 
Held: (1)·that the agreements required registration and in 
the absence of it the rights could not be entertained. 
Srimathi Shantabai v. State of Bombay, [1959] S.C.R. 265, 
followed. 
(2) that in cases where the period stipulated in the agree-
ment had expired, the only remedy, if any, was to sue for 
breach of contract and no \\'rit to enforce expired agreements 
could issue. 
(3) that on their. true construction the agreements in question 
were not contracts of sale of goods. 
(4) that both under the Act in question and the Central 
Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917, the forests and trees in the 
Zamindari area belonged to the proprietors and they were items 
of proprietary' rights. 
Consequently, the rights conveyed to· 
the petitioners under the agreements '\Vere proprietary rights, 
which under ss. 3 and 4 of the· Act, became vested in the State. 
(5) that assuming that the agreements did not amount to 
grant of any proprietary right by the proprietors to the peti-
tioners, the latter could have only the benefit of their respective 
contracts or licenses. In either case, the State had not, by the 
Act, aCquired o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.