9911796707
TMI Blog1962 (5) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s made by the outgoing proprietors in favour of the respondents convey any rights to them. which could be enforced against the appellant, the State of Madhya Pradesh, after the coming into effect' of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (Madhya Pradesh Act of 1951)-which will be referred to hereinafter is the Act. It is not necessary to state the facts of each case in any detail because they are not disputed, and nothing turns on the difference in facts. In Civil Appeal No. 229 of 1961, the respondent obtained, by virtue of registered documents, the grant of 24 villages in Balaghat and Mandla Districts, for propagating lac, the lease to expire on July 31, 1955. In Civil Appeal No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ute in all these cases had been extinguished, in view of the provisions of s. 4 (1) (a) of the Act Soon after the decision aforesaid of this Court, the matter was re-examined by this Court in the case of Shrimati Shantabai v. State, of Bombay ((1959) S.C.R. 265), and in the case of Mahadeo v. The, State of Bombay ((1959) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 339). The earliest decision of this Court with reference to the Act is a decision of the Division Bench of three. Judge in Chhotabhai Jethabai Patel and Co. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (supra). In that case, which, was a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners had entered into various contracts and agreements with the proprietors of the estates, before the dates on whit the estates vest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the State with those rights. This Court held that if the grant purported to transfer any proprietary interest in land, it would be ineffective because it was not evidenced by a registered document, and that under is. 3 of the Act all proprietary interest vested in the State. If it was a grant of profits a prendre it would partake of the nature of immovable property and would not be effective without a registered document evidencing the grant. If on the other hand it was a more contract creating personal rights, the petitioner could-not complain of any act on behalf of the State officials because the State had not taken possession of the contract, which remained the petitioner's property. The State not being a party to that contract, would n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in those interest the State was not interested, as the State was not bound by the agreements entered into by the outgoing proprietors. It would thus appear that in view of this two later decisions of this Court, the High Court was in error in granting any relief to the respondents. But it has been contended on behalf of the respondents that certain aspects of the controversy had not been brought to the notice of the Court on the previous occasion, and that the respondents were entitled to the benefit of s. 6 of the Act. It was contended that the respondents' right were not in the nature of mere licences, but were in the nature of profits a prendre, which were saved to them in view of the provisions of s. 6. In our opinion, there is no subs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terest through him, had in the trees, scrubjungle, forest, etc., ceased on the vesting of the estate in the State. But it was contended on behalf of the respondents that s. 6(1) saves their rights from the operation of s. 4(1)(a), because, it is argued, s. 4(1)(a) is subject to the provisions of s. 6(1). Section 6(1) runs as follows "6(1) Except as provided 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 the date of vesting, be void." In our opinion, there is no substance in this contention. Section 6 refers to those transactions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied lands and homestead, and of all interests vesting in the State under s, 3. Upon such taking over of possession, the State becomes liable to pay the compensation provided for in s. 8 and the succeeding sections. The respondents have not been able to show that their interest come under any of the clauses aforesaid of s. 5. A great deal of argument was advanced on behalf of the respondents showing the distinction between a bare licence and a licence coupled with grant or profit a prendre. But, in our opinion, it is not necessary to discuss those fine distinctions because whatever may have been the nature of the grant by the outgoing proprietors in favour of the respondents, those grants had no legal effect as against the State, except in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
