# JASODABAI & SMT. RAMCHANDRABAI v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR

- **Citation:** [1970] 3 S.C.R. 285
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-11-26
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 1554 and 1555 of 1966
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jasodabai-smt-ramchandrabai-v-the-state-of-maharashtra-anr-4913
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

285
A
.JASODABAI & SMT. RAMCHANDRABAI
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
November 26, 1969
B
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., A. N. GROVER,
A. N. RAY,
c
D
E
F
G
H
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND I. D. DUA. JJ.J
Constitution of India, Art. 133-Certificate-Circumstances in which
High Court could not refuse certificate-Practice and Procedure-Refusal
of certificate-Necessity for giving reasons.
The appellants applied to the High Cou'rt for a certificate seeking to
appeal against the judgment and order of the H;gh Court dismissing their
petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Maharashtra Agricultural
Lands (Ceilings on Hcldings) Act, 1961. The High Court had held that
an earlier case had already laid down that the Act was saved by Art. 31A
and that because of its inclusion in tho Ninth Schedule to Act enjoyed the
protection of Art. 31B. The High Court refused the certificate and gave
no reasons for the refusaL In qpell to this Court against the order
refusing certificate it was urged that in view of the decision of this Court
in Ramesh v. Seth Gendclal Motilal Patni the certificate ought to have
been granted because the order was made in the exercise of extra-ordinary
original jurisdiction in a civil proceeding and the valuatiC'ln of the claim , I
was well over Rs. 20,000.
HELD : (i) Article 133 is wide enough to take in civil proceedings
decided in the High Court in the exercise of the extra-or<linary jurisdiction
provided some civil right of the party is decided.
The appellants were
attempting to save their property by challenging the validity of the Act
and the decision of the Court that the Act was valid directly affected the
civil rights
of the parties
in properties well over the ma:rk in value.
In these circumstances the High Court could not refuse the certificate.
Ramesh v. Seth Gendalal Motilal Patni, [1966] 3 S.C.R. 198.
'
The case was not remanded for certification because it would be an
exercise in futility to ask the High Court to certify the cases when the
appeals that would follow must inevitably fail, as this Court had held the
Act to be intra vires and it was protected by Art. 31B of the Constitution.
State of Maharashtra
v.
Madhavrao Damodar Patllchand.
[1968]
3 S.C.R. 712 .
. (iii) It is desirable to state in brief why the certificate is refused, since,
much depends on whether the civil rights of the parties are passed on or
not by the. judgment proposed to be appealed against. Again, if the court
refused to exercise jurisdiction under Art. 226 without deciding the civil
rights claimed, it is better to say so while refusing the certificate.

## Text

285
A
.JASODABAI & SMT. RAMCHANDRABAI
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
November 26, 1969
B
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J., A. N. GROVER,
A. N. RAY,
c
D
E
F
G
H
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND I. D. DUA. JJ.J
Constitution of India, Art. 133-Certificate-Circumstances in which
High Court could not refuse certificate-Practice and Procedure-Refusal
of certificate-Necessity for giving reasons.
The appellants applied to the High Cou'rt for a certificate seeking to
appeal against the judgment and order of the H;gh Court dismissing their
petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Maharashtra Agricultural
Lands (Ceilings on Hcldings) Act, 1961. The High Court had held that
an earlier case had already laid down that the Act was saved by Art. 31A
and that because of its inclusion in tho Ninth Schedule to Act enjoyed the
protection of Art. 31B. The High Court refused the certificate and gave
no reasons for the refusaL In qpell to this Court against the order
refusing certificate it was urged that in view of the decision of this Court
in Ramesh v. Seth Gendclal Motilal Patni the certificate ought to have
been granted because the order was made in the exercise of extra-ordinary
original jurisdiction in a civil proceeding and the valuatiC'ln of the claim , I
was well over Rs. 20,000.
HELD : (i) Article 133 is wide enough to take in civil proceedings
decided in the High Court in the exercise of the extra-or<linary jurisdiction
provided some civil right of the party is decided.
The appellants were
attempting to save their property by challenging the validity of the Act
and the decision of the Court that the Act was valid directly affected the
civil rights
of the parties
in properties well over the ma:rk in value.
In these circumstances the High Court could not refuse the certificate.
Ramesh v. Seth Gendalal Motilal Patni, [1966] 3 S.C.R. 198.
'
The case was not remanded for certification because it would be an
exercise in futility to ask the High Court to certify the cases when the
appeals that would follow must inevitably fail, as this Court had held the
Act to be intra vires and it was protected by Art. 31B of the Constitution.
State of Maharashtra
v.
Madhavrao Damodar Patllchand.
[1968]
3 S.C.R. 712 .
. (iii) It is desirable to state in brief why the certificate is refused, since,
much depends on whether the civil rights of the parties are passed on or
not by the. judgment proposed to be appealed against. Again, if the court
refused to exercise jurisdiction under Art. 226 without deciding the civil
rights claimed, it is better to say so while refusing the certificate.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1554
and 1555 of 1966.
Appeals by special leave from the orders dated pecember 6,
1965 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Misc. Civil
Applications Nos. 170 and 172 of 1965.
286
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1970] 3 S.C.R.
G. L. Sanghi, D:N. Mishra, I. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur,
and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants ( i,n: both the appeals)·
M. S. K. Sastri and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents (in.both
the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hidayatullah, C.J.
This order ill govern the disposal of
Civil Appeals Nos. 1554 and 1555 of 1966.
The two appellants, seeking to appeal against the common
judgment and order of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench),
September 10, 1965, in proceedings under Art. 226 of the Constitution, applied to the Division Bench of the High Court for a
certificate under Arts. 132 and 133(1) (a) or (b) and/or (c) of
the Constitution. Their applications were summarily dismissed
on December 6, 1965.
The present two appeals (consolidated
for hearing) are by special leave and are against the order refusing
certificate. The appellants contend that they were entitled to a certi~
ficate as of right as laid down in Ramesh and Anr. v. Seth Genda-
/al Motilal Patni and Ors. (1) The other side opposes.
The appellants and 3 others had, by their several petitions
under Art. 226 of the Constitution asked that certain notices issued
under s. 17 (2) of the Act for declaration of lands in excess of
the ceilings as surplus and requiring that they be surrendered; be
quashed on the ground that the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands
(Ceilings on Holdings) Act 1961 (27 of 1961) offended Arts.
14, 19 and 31 and was therefore void under Art. 13. The Divisional Bench disposed of the five petitions by a common judgment
and order on September 10, 1965 dismissing them.
It was held
that barring s. 28, the Act was already held to be validly enacted
in a decision of the High Court in another petition decided on
October 25, 1968. The earlier case had laid down that tlie Ad
was saved by Art. 31-A. The Divisional Bench also pointed ·out
that the Act was included in the 9th Schedule to the Constitution
and enjoyed protection of Art. 31-B. That too was held in yet
another petition.
The learned counsel attempted to urge some
new grounds but was not allowed to do so. The petitions were
dismissed but without costs.
In pressing the applications for certificate the petitioners
pointed out that 1976 acres of dry crop lands were involved and
were likely .to be declared surplus and asked to be surrendered
and that at a valuation of Rs. 1,000 per acre, the value of the
subject matter in the High Court and on appeal to this Court was
we.JI over the mark. They claimed a certificate as of right. The
(I) [1966] 3 S.C.R. 198,
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
JASODABAI v. MAHARASHTRA (Hidayatullah, C.l.)
287
High Court refused the certificate but · gave no reasons for the
refusal.
In these appeals it is submitted that in view of the decision
of this Court Ramesh and Anr. v. Seth Gendalal Motilal Patni and
Ors. (1), the certificate ought to have been granted because the
order was made in the exercise of extraordinary original jurisdiction in a civil proceeding and the valuation of the claim was well
over Rs. 20,000. It is submitted that the appeals satisfied all the
tests laid down by this Court in the earlier case.
There is considerable force in the submissions.
As pointed
out in the earlier case Art. 133 is wide enough to take in civil
proceedings decided in the High Court in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction provided some civil right of the party is
decided. The appellants before the High Court were attempting
to save their property by challenging the validity of the Act and
the decision of the Court that the Act was valid directly affected
the civil rights of the parties in properties well over the mark in
value.
In these circumstances, the High Court could not refuse
the certificate.
We would have, therefore, seriously considered
remending the case to the High Court for the grant of a certificate
but for two things. Special leave was granted on May 5, 1966.
Since then on April 10, 1968, in Stale of Maharashtra etc. v.
Madhavrao Damodar Patilchand and Ors. etc. (2 ) this Court has
held the Act to the intra vires and the Act is also included in the
9th Schedule and is protected by Art. 31-B of the ,Constitution.
It will be an exercise in futility to ask the High Court to certify
the cases when the appeals that will follow must necessarily and
inevitably fail. It is better to save circuity of action and to dismiss .the appeals before us.
We order accordingly but make no
order about costs.
We may say here that it is desirable to state in brief why the
certificate is refused since much depends on whether the civil
rights of the parties are passed on or not by the judgment proposed to be appealed against.
A11;ain, if the Court refuses to
exercise jurisdiction under Art. 226 without deciding the civil
rights claimed, it is better to say so while refusing the certificate.
R.K.P.S.
(I) [1966] l S.C.R. 198.
(2) t19681 l S.C.R. 712.
Appeals dismissed.