SARDAR GOVINDRAO AND OTHERS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1965] 1 S.C.R. 678 · Decided: 06-10-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SARDAR GOVINDRAO AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
October 6, 1964 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, c. J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, JlAGHUBAR DAYAL AND 
J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.) 
The C.P. and Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948, 
s. 5(3)-Descendant.< of former Cliiefs losing exemption entitled (O apply 
for tnoney grant or pension--Granting of pension, if conditions sallsfied, 
'K'hether discretionary. 
The appellants who were descendants of a former ruling chief and had 
lost their exemption from land revenue as a result of the operation of 
s. 3 of the C.P. & Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 
1948, applied for a pension or money grant under the provisions of s. 5 
of the Act. Their petition was rejected by the State Government without 
reasons being recorded. They filed a writ petition under Art. 226 but the 
High Court held that the granting of a pension was completely within the 
discretion of the Government and the petition was therefore incompetent. 
In appeal before the Supreme Court the appellants contended that rejce· 
tion ot' their petition without any reasons being given amounted to no 
decision at all, and that once the conditions for the grant of a pension 
were satisfied it was obligatory on the State Government to make a grant 
of money or pension. 
On bchati of the State Government reliance was 
placed on the words of s. 5(2) that after enquiry in respect of the applica-
tions the Government 'may pass such orders as it deems fit' and the directory 
word 'may' used in s. 5 ( 3) itself. 
HELD: (i) Sub-section (2) and (3) of s. 5 must be considered sepa-
rately. 
Under sub-s. (2) all the applications for grant of money or 
pension had to be considered and Government could deal with them in 
several v.·ays. 
Notwithstanding its apparent discretion s. 5 (2) only enabled 
Government to pass orders as fit the occasion. 
(683 E-H]. 
In sub-s. (3) special classes namely religious and charitable institution.-. 
etc. and descendants of ruling chiefs had to be dealt '";th and therefore 
the discretion stood modified. The rule> highlighted the distinction between 
the two sub-sections because they provided for special enquiries in cases 
falling under sub-s. (3) (683 A-DJ. 
Enabling provisions sometimes acquire a compulsory force and in the 
present instance on the existence of the condition precedent. the grant of 
money or pension became obligatory on the Government notwithstanding 
that in sub-s. (2) the Government had power to pass such orders as it 
thought fit and in sub-s. (3) the word 'may' was used. 
Except in those 
cases where there were good grounds for not granting the pension, Govern· 
ment was bound to make a grant to those who fulfilled the desired condi-
tions and the word 'may' in the third sub-section though apparently discre· 
tionary had to be read as 'must', [684 B·H]. 
Afaxv.·e/I on Interpretation of Statutes, referred to, 
(ii) In passing orders on the appellants' application Government had 
lo act in a quasi-judicial manner. 
The appellants had to be given an 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
GOVINDRAO v. STATB (Hidayatlll/ah J,) 
67 9 
A 
oppo11Unlty to state their case and were also entitled to know why their 
claim had been rejected. [685 B-D]. 
M/1. Harl Nagar Sugar Mi/ls. Ltd. v: Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwa/a and 
Others [1962) 2 S.C.R. 339, referred to. 
Order of the State Government set aside. 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 182 of 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
April 20, 1959, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Peti-
tion No. 325 of 1955. 
C 
S.-V. Gupte, Solicitor-General, W. S. Barlingay, S. T. Khirwar-
D 
kar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellants. 
M. S. K. Sastri and M. S. Narasimhan for I. N. Shroff, for th~ 
respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
IDdayatullah J. The appellants claiming to be the descen-
dants of former ruling chiefs in the Hoshangabad and Nimar 
Districts of Madhya Pradesh applied under the Central Provinces 
and Berar Revocation' of Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948, for 
grant of money or pension as suitable maintenance for themselves. 
E By that Act, every .estate, mahal, village or land which was 
exempted from the payment of the whole or part of land revenue 
by special grant of, or contract with the Crown, or under the 
provision of any law or rule for the time being in force or in pur-
suance of.any other instrument was after the appointed date 

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