MULAMCHAND versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 214 · Decided: 20-02-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
February 20, 1968 
A 
[J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND G. K. MITTER., JJ;] 
B 
Mcdhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, 
Mahal<. 
Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (Act 1 of 1951)-Right to collect /-st 
produce-Whether a pr_oprietar,v righ~Whtther vests in State under pro--
•visions of Act. 
ComtitUlion of India, Art. 299-Contract not complying with Article 
whether valid. 
Indian Contract Act (9 of 1872), s. 10-Applicability of-Conditions 
'lUr/der which restitution should be made. 
c 
Before the coming into force on April 1, 1951 of the Madhya Pradesh 
Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 
1950 (Act 1 of 1951), the appellant had purchased from certain proprieton 
D 
.of land the right to collect forest produce from the said land dunna the 
years !951, 1952 and 1953. The right was to be enjoyed after April l, 
1951 on which date under the aforesaid Act, the propnetary rights cam< 
. lo vest in the State of Madhya Prad .. h. The Deputy Commissioner achng 
·under s. 7 of the Act prevented the appellant from enjoying the rights he 
had acquired from the proprietors, and in April 1951 auctioned the right to 
collect forest produce from the land. 11te appellant deposited Rs. 10,UOO 
to acquire the right of collecting lac from the said land during 1951, 1952 
E 
and 1953. He collected some lac but thereafter filed 
a suit clatmtcg 
refund of the deposit of Rs. 10,000 on the basis that there was no valid 
.contract between him and the State of Madhya Pradesh as the provistoo& 
of Art. 299 of the Constitution were not complied with and the contract 
was void. The trial court granted him a dec'ree but the High Court dtci· 
<led against him. With certificate the appellant came to this Court. 
HELD : (i) .The right to collect fOrest produce was a proprietary ri)!ht 
F 
and vested in the State Government by the operation of s. 4(1)(a) of the 
Abclition Act. The contrary view taken in Chhotabhai J.ihabhai Patti & . 
Co.'s case, was expressly overruled by this Court in State of Madhya 
'Pradesh v. Yakinuddin. 
The present case was directly coveted 
by the 
latler case. [219 G-220 CJ 
Stall! of Madhya Pradesh v. Yakinuddin [1963) 3 S.C.R. 13, relied on. 
Chhotcbhai lethabhai Patel & Co. v. State of Madh.va Pradesh, [1953) 
·s.C.R. 476 and Mahadco v. State of Bombay, [19591 2 Supp. S.C.R. 339, 
:referred to. 
(ii) The provisions of Art. 299(1) of the Constitution like 
the 
l'rovisi"'1S of s. 175(3) of the Government of India Act, 1935 have not 
been enacted for the sake of mere form but they have been enacted fo• 
saieguarding the Government against unauthorised contracts. The formali-
ties which arc embodied therein on grounds of public policy cannot be 
waived or dispensed with. The appellant was right in his contention ~hat 
the contract cn~'red into by him was void because Art. 299 bad not been 
.complied with. [221 E-Fl 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
MULAMCHAND ~. M. P. STATE (Ramaswami, J.) 
215 
Seth Bikhraj Jaipuria v. Urrion of India, [1962) 2 S.C.R. 880. and State 
of West Bengal v. Mis. B. K. Monda/&: Sons, [1962) 1 Supp, S.<;.R. 876, 
relied on. 
(iii) However the refund of Rs. 10,000 claimed by 
the appellant 
could not be allowed as he did not satisfy the conditions of s. 70 of the 
Indian Contract Act. 1be person who seeks restitution has a duty to 
account to the def<mdant for what he has received in the transaction from 
which his right to restitution arises.· The appellant had 
not 
produced 
sufficient evidence to show to what extent he worked the contract 
and 
wnat was the profit made by him in the year 1951 and the succeeding 
y<.arS. In the absence of reliable evidence on this point the appellant was 
not entitled to restitution or refund of the deposit he 
bad made. 
[223 A-CJ 
Fibrosa v. Fairbairn, [1943) A.C. 32 and Nelson v. N'7ho/t [1948] 1 
K.B. 330 applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 393 of 
1965. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated March 21, 1961 
of the Madhya Pradesh High Coun in First Appeal No. 34 of 
1958. 
D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant. 
I. N. Shroff, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the cOun was delivered by 
Rammwami, J. This appeal is brought by certificate on 
E 
behalf of the plaintiff from the judgment of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh dated March 21, 1961 in First Appeals Nos. 
34 and 64 of 1958. 
F 
G 
H 
The appellant had purchased a right to pll!ck, collect and 
remove the forest produce

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