# / ' 3 s.C.R. SUPREME COuR'.l' REPORTS \ STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. YAKINUDDIN

- **Citation:** [1963] 3 S.C.R. 13
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963-07-31
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, P. B. i-AJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. Wanchoo, N. H.AJAGOPALA AYyANGAR, T. L. Venkatarama Aiyar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/3-s-c-r-supreme-cour-l-reports-state-of-madhya-pradesh-v-yakinuddin-2587
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

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 document or in any other law for the time being in force, and save
as otherwise provided in this Act, the consequences as hereinafter 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 intermediary 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:
·

## Text

,/
'
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 document or in any other law for the time being in force, and save
as otherwise provided in this Act, the consequences as hereinafter 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 intermediary 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 respective grants 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, Mahala,
Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (Madhya Pradesh Act
l of 1951)-which will be referred to hereinafter
as 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 Balagha.t and Mandla. Districts, for propagating lac, the lease to expire on
July 31, 1955. In Civil Appeal No. 281 of 1961,
by virtue of two unregistered agreements, the
respondent obtained the right to collect tendu leaves
in 37 villages upto July 31, 1963. In Civil Appeal
No. 282 of 1961, the respondent obtained similar
rights from the proprietor by virtue of registered
agreements, extending up to the end of the year
1962. In Civil Appeal No. 283 of 1961, the reRpondent obtained the right to collect fruits and flower
of Mahua trees from the proprietor, extending
down to the year 1969, by virtue of three
registered leases.
On the coming into effect of the Act and tlte
issue of the necessary -notifications under s. 3 of
the Act, the appellant, the State of Madhya Pradesh,
took possession of all the villages comprised in the
respective estates of t_he proprietors, who were
the gra.ntors of the several interest indicated above
1962
Stott of
Madh.1" Praduh
v,
Y•lei11uddi11
Sinha C. J.
19§.8J
State of
M ad,hy~ Prad1sh
v.
Ya~,i~,in,
Sinha C. J.
16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [i9s3j
in favour of the respondents. The State refused
to recognise the rights claimed by the respondents
by virtife
of
the
transactions
aforesaid in
their favour.
In each case, the High Court relying upon
the decision of tbis Court in Ghhotabhai J ethabai,
PatP.l and Go~ v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (')
grant~d the relief claimed by the respondents, and .
held that the several interests claimed by the
respond!lnts l:iad not been affected by the coming
into force of the Act .. The High l ourt did not
accept the contention raised on behalf of the State
that as a result of the .coming into operation of
the Act, all these interests which were the subject
1!1atter of dispute in all these cases had been extinguished, in view of the provisions of s. 4 (I) (a)
of the Act. Soon after the decision aforesaid of
this Court, the mat~er was re-examined by this
Court in the case of Shrimati Shantabai v. State
of Bombay \2), and in the case of Mahadeo v. The
State of Bombay (.').
The earliest decision of this Court with
reference to the Act is a decision of the . Division
Bench of three. ,Judges in Ghhotabhai Jethabai Pa.tel
'and Oo. v. The Stare of l)fadhya Pradesh ('). In
that, case, which. was a petition under Art .. 32
of the Constitution, the petitioners had entered
into various contracts. and agreements with the
propri!ltors of the estates, before the dates on
which, the estates ves.ted in the State, under the
Act, under which
they were entitled to pluck,
collect and carry away tendu leaves and to cultiva,~e," culture and acquire lac, as also to cut and
carry away teak and timber. The petitioners had
complained to this Court that the State of Madhya
Pradesh had been interfering with their rights thus
(1; (1953) s.c.R. 476.
(2) (1959) s.c.R. 265.
(3) (I959) Supp. 2 s.c.R. 339.
(
l
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME OOUR!r REPOR['S
17
acquired from the outgoing proprietors. This
Court held, on a construction of the contracts,
that the grants in essence and effect were licences
to the petitioners who were neither
proprietors,
nor persons having any interests in the proprietary
rights through the proprietors, nor were their
·interests 'encumbrances' within the meaning. of
that, expression in s. 3 (I) of the Act. In that
view of the matter, the ·Court granted the writs in
favour of the petitioners. Naturally, the High
Court granted appropriate .reliefs to the respondents in this batch or cases, relying upon . this
decision of this Court.
In the case of Shrimati Shantabai v. State of
Bombay (l) the same question came up to be re-examined by a Constitution Bench of this Court. The
petitioner in that case had obtained from. the
proprietor the right to take and appropriate all
kinds of wood from certain forests in his estate,
by an unregistered document. On the coming into
effect of the Act, the State authorities interfered
with the petitioner's rights under the grant from
the proprietor. The petitioner moved this Court
under Art. 32 of the Constitution, complaining of
interference by 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 (lvidenced by a registered
document, and that under s. 3 of the Act all
proprietary interest vested in the
State.
If
it was a grant of profits a prerulre it would
partake of
the nature of
immovable
pro"
perty
and would
not be effective
without
a registered document evidencing the grant. If on
the other hand it was a mere contract creating
personal rights, the petitioner could-..not complain
of any act on behalf of the State officials because
(I)
(19~9) s.c.a. 265.
1961
Sll!Je of
Madh§<l Praiesh
v.
Tdin~it(in
Sinha C. J.
1961
St"i' of
JI odhy• Prau•h
•.
Yaki•uitlin
--·
Sillh• C. J.
is
SuPREM:E COuRT REPORTS [1963]
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 not
be bound by it,· and that, alternatively, if the State
were bound by the terms of the contract, the petitioner's remedy lay by way of suit for the enforcement of the contract. Hence, it was held that
there was no question of the infringement of any
fundamental right in that case.
.
The provisions of the Act also came in for
consideration in the case of Mahadeo v. The State of
Bombay (1 ).
In that case, the petitioners had obtained from the outgoing proprietors the right to collect tendu leaves and other forest produce in villages
which formed part of the proprietors' estates, before
the coming into effect of the Act. Some of the
agreements were registered whereas others were not.
The State did not respect those gr<tnts and put those·
rights to auction, after having taken possession of
those estates, when they had vest'3d in the State
under s. 3 of the Aot. The petitioners then moved
this Court under Art. 32 of the Constitution complaining of the infringement of their rights to property. It was held by this Court that the agree.
ments required registration, and in the absence of
registered documents could not confer any rights,
which were some interest in land. It was also held
that rights conveyed to the petitioners under the
agreements were proprietary rights which, under
the provisions of ss. 3 and. 4 of the Act became
vested in the State. Alternatively, if the interests
created by the agreements were not in respect of
proprietary rights, it was held that 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 .. Bat
(I) (19.59) Supp. 2 s.c.R. 339.
..
>-
' '
..
3S.O.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
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, J:mt 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 substance in the
contention raised on behalf of the respondent.
Under s. 3 of the Act, from the date of the notification by the State, all proprietary rights in an estate
vesting in a proprietor of such an estate or in a
person having interest in such proprietary rights
through the proprietor, shall vest in the 8tate for
the purposes of the State, free from all encumbrances.
The consequences of such a vesting are laid
down in s. 4, which· runs into several clauses and
sub-sections.
l::lection 4(l)(a) is the relevant provision of the Act which determines this controversy
entirely against the respondents. It provides that
"when the notification under s.3 in respect of any
area has been published in the Gazette, then, not-
. withstanding anything contained in any contract,
grant or document or in any other law for the time
being in force, and save as otherwise provided in
this Act, the consequences as herein!'tfter set forth
shall.. .ensue, 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 ... "(We have omitted the words which are not necessary for the
purposes
of
the
present
appeals).
It
is
clear on a bare reading of the provisions of
cl. (a)
of s. 4 (1) that
whatever rights the
proprietor, or a person claiming interest through
1962
State of
Madloya Pradesh
v.
raklnudtfin
Sinha C. J.
1962
·state of
Madhya Pradesh
..
'Yitkintidd;n
:Sinha .C. J.
·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 thats. 6(1) saves their rights from the operation of s. 4(I)(a), because, it is argued, s. 4{l)(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
Aot 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 conten-
'(.
tion. Section 6 refers to those transactions of transfer
of any right which is liable to vest in the State as
beicg void. It does not l.ay down that a transfer
made before March 16, 1950, shall be binding upon
the State. T9t transfers .which have been saved by
s. 6(1) from being void may be recognised by the
State for which the transferee may be entitled to
't·
claim some compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the Act. But ·s. 6 does not· save that
interest from being vested in· the State as a result
of the notification under s. 3, read withs. 4(I)(a) ..
The scheme of the Act is that it provides for the
acquisition \by the State of all ·interests in the
. estate of the proprietor himself or of an intermediary, except the tiller of the soil.
This it ·does by
.... ,
vesting all proprietary•rights in the State, of whatever grade, by issuing the notification ·under s. 3,
vesting it in the State, for' the purposes· of the State
free from all encumbrances. Section 4 lays down
in great detail tht'l rights which become extinguished
on the vesting of the· estate as afore·said. What is
saved to the proprietor or •any other ·person claim-
/'
ing through him is set out in s. 5, els; (a)·te (h), on
such terms and conditionM as may be determined
·I
{
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
21
by the State. Hence any person 0111.iming some
interest as a proprietor or as holding through a proprietor in respect of any proprietary interest in an
estate has got to bring his interest within s. 5,
bec'.l.nse on the date of vesting of the estate, the
Deputy Commi~sioner takes charge of all lands
other than occupied 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 thatltheir interest come under
·any of the clauses aforesaid of s. 5.
A great deal of' argument was advanr.ed on
behalf of the respondents showing the distinction
between a bare licence and a licence coupled with
grant or profit a pre:ndre.
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 so far as the State may
have recognised them. But the provisions of the
Act leave no manner of doubt that the rights claimed by the respondents could not have been enforced
against the State, if the Jatter was not prepared to
respect those rights and the rights created by the
transactions between the respondents and their
grantors did not come . .within any of the saving
clauses of s. 5. ·
In view. of these considerations, it must be
held that these cases are equally governed by the
decisions aforesaid of this Court, which have overruled the earliest decision in the case of Ohhotabhai
Jethabai Patel and Go. v. The State of Madhya
Prridesh ('). The appeals are accordingly allowed
with costs throughout, hearing fee one set in this
Court.
Appeal allowed~
-·-.......
{I) (!953) S.t;:.Jl,; •76,
1962
State of
Madhya Pradesh
••
ralcinuddin
Sinha C. J.