STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus YAKINUDDIN

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 13 · Decided: 04-05-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

,/ 
' 
3 s.C.R. 
SUPREME COuR'.l' REPORTS 
\ 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
v. 
YAKINUDDIN 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. i-AJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. 
WANCHOO, N. H.AJAGOPALA AYyANGAR and 
T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYAR, JJ.) 
Abolition of Proprietary Rights-Consequence of vesting of 
such rights in the State-Transfer of interest by Proprietor-If 
enforceable against the State-Madhya Pradesh Abolition of 
Proprietary Right1 (Estates, Mahala, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 
(M.P. 1of1951), ss. 3, 4, 5, 6. 
Section 4 (1) (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of 
~roprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 
1950, provides that "when the notification under s. 3 in respect 
of any areas has been published in the Gazette, then, notwith· 
sta11ding anything contained in any contract, grant or docu-
ment or in any other law for the time being in force, and save 
as otherwise provided in this Act, the consequences as herein-
after set forth shall .... ensure, namely, (a) all rights, title 
and interest vesting. in the proprietor or any person having 
interest in such proprietary right through the proprietor in 
such area including land (cultivable or barren), grass land, 
scrubjungle forest, trees .... shall cease and be vested in the 
State for the purposes of the State free of all encumbrances .. " 
The respondents, by grants from and agreements with the 
proprietors, acquired the right to propagate lac/ collect tendu 
leaves and gather fruits and flowers of Mahna leaves in 
certain estates. 
On the coming into effect of the Act and the 
i&sue of necessary notifications under s. 8, the State took 
possession of the estates and refused to recognise the rights 
claimed by the respondents. The High Court relying on the 
decision of this Court in Ohhotabhai Jetha.bhai Patel and Oo. v. 
Sta.te rJf Madhya Pradesh, (1953) S.C.R. 476, held the rights 
claimed by the respondents had not been affected by the Act. 
The State appealed. The case of the respondents was that 
their rights were saved by s. 6(1) of the Act which was as 
follows:-
"6( 1 \ Except as pr()vided in sub-section (2), the 
transfer of any right in the property which is liable to 
vest in the State under this Act made by the proprietor 
at any time after the 16th March 1950 shall, as from 
th~ date of vesting, be void!" 
1962 
May 4. 
SltJlo of · 
M •dhys Pmdesh 
v. 
YaTtinuddin 
' 
14 
sbPREME COURT REPORTS rrn63J 
Held,. that whatever rights the respondents had acquired 
from the proprietprs ceased to have· effect by the operation of 
s. 4( I )(a) of the Act on the vesting of the estates in the State. 
It was not correct to say that s. 6( I) of the Act saved those 
rights. 
That 5ection referred to those transaction of transfer 
of right which was liable to vest in the State and rendered 
them void. It did not lay down that a transfer made before 
March 16, 1950, was necessarily binding on the State. 
The Act had for its object the acquisition by the State 
of all interests in the estate that the proprietor or an inter-
mediary had in it except those of the actual tillers of the soil. 
Clau8es (a) to (h) of s. 5 of the Act showed what interests' 
were saved by the Act and the interests sought to be enforced 
by the respondent, were none of these; The rights c !aimed 
by them, therefore, could not be enforced against the State. 
Ohhotabhai J ethabhai Patel and Go. v. State of Madhya · 
Pradesh, (1953] S.C:R. 476, overruled. 
· 
. Shrimali Shantabai .v. State of Bombay, (1959] S.U.R. 265 
and Mahadeo v. State of Bombay, [1959) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 239, 
applied: 
· 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civii Appeals 
Nos. 229 & 281 to 283/1961. 
· 
.WITH 
C. A. Nos. 281 to 283 of 1961. 
'r 
1 
Appeals from the judgment and orders dated 
February 20, J958, of the Madhya Pradesh High 
.. 
Court in Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 500 and 524 
of 1954 and 419 of 1955 . 
. I. N. Shroff, for the appellants. 
S. N. Khe:rdekar, R. N. Brivastave, N. K. 
)" 
Kkerdekar and Ganpat· Rai, for the responden.t (in 
C, A. No. 229/61). 
.• G. 0. Mathur, for the respondent (in C. A. 
No. 281/61). 
· 
H. N. Banyal, · Additional Solicitor General of 
India and G. O. Mathur, for the reepondent (in C.A. 
} 
No. 282/61). 
W. S. Barlingay and A. G, ·Ratnaparkhi, fo~ 
· the reaponfleat (in C . .A. No. 28~/61). 
--
9 S.C.R. 
SUPREM~ COURT REPORTS 
15 
1962. May 4. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
, 
SINHA, C. J.-In these appeals the common 
question of law that arises for determination is 
whether the resp

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