LexSHRIMATI SHANTABAI versus STATE OF BOMBAY & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,. .
•
>
S.C.R.
~UPREME COURT REPORTS
.265
the appellant to rigorous imprisonment. Be it as it
may, as the High Court had no power to impose a sen-
tence of rigorous imprisonment we change the sentence
from rigorous imprisonment to simple impriso.nment
for a period of one month in each case. 'Vith this
modification the appeals are dismissed.
•
•
Appeals dismissed .
•
SHRIMATI SHANTABAI
v.
STATE OF BOMBAY & OTHERS
(S. R. DAS c. J., VENKATARAMA AIYAR, s. K. DAS,
A. K. SARKAR and VIVIAN BosE JJ.)
Fundamental Rights, Enforcement of-Unregistered document
conferring right to cut and appropriate wood from forest land-Pro"
prietary interest vested in State by subsequent enactment-Claim
founded on rights accruing from such document, if maintainable-
Constitution of India, Arts. I9(I)(f), I9(I)(g)-Madhya Pradesh
Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Larrds)
Act, r950 (No. I of I95I).
By an unregistered document the husband of the petitioner ·
granted her the right fo take and appropriate all kinds of
wood from certain forests in his Zamindary. With the passing
of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates,
Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, all proprietary rights in
land vested in the State under s. 3 of that Act and the
petitioner could no longer cut any wood. She applied to the
Deputy Commissioner and obtained from him an order under
s. 6(2) of the Act permitting her to work the forest and started
cutting the trees.
The Divisional Forest Officer too.k action
"
against her and passed an order directing that her name might be
cancelled and the cut materials forfeited. She .moved the State
Government against this order but to no effect. Thereafter she
applied to this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution and con-
tended that t.he order of Rorest Officer infringed her fundamental
fights under Arts. 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) :
,
Held (per curiam), that the order in question did not infringe
the ffmdamental rights of the petitioner under Arts. 19(1)(f) and
19(1)(g) and the petition must be dismissed.
n
•
•
Kapur Chand
Pokhrf!lj
v.
The Statt of
Bombay
Subba Rao j.
March 24.
•
•
266
SUPREME COURT REPORnl
.[1959]
Ananda Behera v. The State of Orissa, [r955] 2 S.C.R. 919,
Shrimal~antabai followed .
• v.
Chhotabai ]ethabai Patel and Co. v. The Stats of Madhya
State of Bombay Pradesh, [r953] S.C.R. 476, not followed.
('>' Others
Held (per Das C. J., Venkatarama Aiyar, S. K. Das and
A. K. Sarkar, JJ.), that it was not necessary to examine the docu-
ment minutely and finally determine its real character for the
purpose of deciding the matter in controversy, for whatever con.-
struction might he put on it, the petition must fail. If the docu-
ment purported to transfer any proprietary interest in land, it
would he ineffective both for non-registtation un.der the Registra-
tion Act and under s. 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Pro-
prietary Rights Act which vested such interest in the State. If
it was a profits-a-prendre that was sought to be transferred by it,
then again the document would be compulsorily registrable as a
profits-a-prendre was by its nature immoveable property. If it
was a contract that gave rise to a purely personal right, assum-
ing that a contract was property within the meaning of Art.
19(1)(f) and 31(1) of the Constitution, the petitioner coultl not
complain as the State had not acquired or taken possession of the
contract which remained her property and she was free to dispose
of it in any way she liked. The State not being a party to that
contract would not be bound by it, and even if for some reason or
other it could be, the remedy of the petitioner lay by way of a
suit for enforcement of the contract and compensation for any
possible breach of it and no question of infringement of any
fundamental right could arise.
·
Per Bose J. The document conferred a right on the peti-
tioner to enter on the lands in order to cut down and carry away.
not merely the standing timber, but also other trees that were
not in a fit state to be felled at once. The grant was, therefore,
not merely in respect of moveable property but immoveable
property as well. Being valued at Rs. 26,000, the document was
compulsorily registrable under the Registration Act otherwise no
title or interest could pass; and in absence of such registration
th; petitioner had no fundamental rights that could be enforced,
as heExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.