# SARDAR GOVINDRAO AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

- **Citation:** [1965] 1 S.C.R. 678
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1964-10-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 182 of 1964
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, K. N. Wanchoo, M. Hidayatullah, JlAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. R. Mudholkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sardar-govindrao-and-others-v-state-of-madhya-pradesh-3378
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

The C.P. and Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948,
s. 5(3)-Descendant.< of former Cliiefs losing exemption entitled (O apply
for tnoney grant or pension--Granting of pension, if conditions sallsfied,
'K'hether discretionary.
The appellants who were descendants of a former ruling chief and had
lost their exemption from land revenue as a result of the operation of
s. 3 of the C.P. & Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemptions Act,
1948, applied for a pension or money grant under the provisions of s. 5
of the Act. Their petition was rejected by the State Government without
reasons being recorded. They filed a writ petition under Art. 226 but the
High Court held that the granting of a pension was completely within the
discretion of the Government and the petition was therefore incompetent.
In appeal before the Supreme Court the appellants contended that rejce·
tion ot' their petition without any reasons being given amounted to no
decision at all, and that once the conditions for the grant of a pension
were satisfied it was obligatory on the State Government to make a grant
of money or pension.
On bchati of the State Government reliance was
placed on the words of s. 5(2) that after enquiry in respect of the applications the Government 'may pass such orders as it deems fit' and the directory
word 'may' used in s. 5 ( 3) itself.
HELD: (i) Sub-section (2) and (3) of s. 5 must be considered separately.
Under sub-s. (2) all the applications for grant of money or
pension had to be considered and Government could deal with them in
several v.·ays.
Notwithstanding its apparent discretion s. 5 (2) only enabled
Government to pass orders as fit the occasion.
(683 E-H].
In sub-s. (3) special classes namely religious and charitable institution.-.
etc. and descendants of ruling chiefs had to be dealt '";th and therefore
the discretion stood modified. The rule> highlighted the distinction between
the two sub-sections because they provided for special enquiries in cases
falling under sub-s. (3) (683 A-DJ.
Enabling provisions sometimes acquire a compulsory force and in the
present instance on the existence of the condition precedent. the grant of
money or pension became obligatory on the Government notwithstanding
that in sub-s. (2) the Government had power to pass such orders as it
thought fit and in sub-s. (3) the word 'may' was used.
Except in those
cases where there were good grounds for not granting the pension, Govern·
ment was bound to make a grant to those who fulfilled the desired conditions and the word 'may' in the third sub-section though apparently discre·
tionary had to be read as 'must', [684 B·H].
Afaxv.·e/I on Interpretation of Statutes, referred to,
(ii) In passing orders on the appellants' application Government had
lo act in a quasi-judicial manner.
The appellants had to be given an
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
GOVINDRAO v. STATB (Hidayatlll/ah J,)
67 9
A
oppo11Unlty to state their case and were also entitled to know why their
claim had been rejected. [685 B-D].
M/1. Harl Nagar Sugar Mi/ls. Ltd. v: Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwa/a and
Others [1962) 2 S.C.R. 339, referred to.
Order of the State Government set aside.
B

## Text

SARDAR GOVINDRAO AND OTHERS
v.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
October 6, 1964
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, c. J., K. N. WANCHOO,
M. HIDAYATULLAH, JlAGHUBAR DAYAL AND
J. R. MUDHOLKAR JJ.)
The C.P. and Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948,
s. 5(3)-Descendant.< of former Cliiefs losing exemption entitled (O apply
for tnoney grant or pension--Granting of pension, if conditions sallsfied,
'K'hether discretionary.
The appellants who were descendants of a former ruling chief and had
lost their exemption from land revenue as a result of the operation of
s. 3 of the C.P. & Berar Revocation of Land Revenue Exemptions Act,
1948, applied for a pension or money grant under the provisions of s. 5
of the Act. Their petition was rejected by the State Government without
reasons being recorded. They filed a writ petition under Art. 226 but the
High Court held that the granting of a pension was completely within the
discretion of the Government and the petition was therefore incompetent.
In appeal before the Supreme Court the appellants contended that rejce·
tion ot' their petition without any reasons being given amounted to no
decision at all, and that once the conditions for the grant of a pension
were satisfied it was obligatory on the State Government to make a grant
of money or pension.
On bchati of the State Government reliance was
placed on the words of s. 5(2) that after enquiry in respect of the applications the Government 'may pass such orders as it deems fit' and the directory
word 'may' used in s. 5 ( 3) itself.
HELD: (i) Sub-section (2) and (3) of s. 5 must be considered separately.
Under sub-s. (2) all the applications for grant of money or
pension had to be considered and Government could deal with them in
several v.·ays.
Notwithstanding its apparent discretion s. 5 (2) only enabled
Government to pass orders as fit the occasion.
(683 E-H].
In sub-s. (3) special classes namely religious and charitable institution.-.
etc. and descendants of ruling chiefs had to be dealt '";th and therefore
the discretion stood modified. The rule> highlighted the distinction between
the two sub-sections because they provided for special enquiries in cases
falling under sub-s. (3) (683 A-DJ.
Enabling provisions sometimes acquire a compulsory force and in the
present instance on the existence of the condition precedent. the grant of
money or pension became obligatory on the Government notwithstanding
that in sub-s. (2) the Government had power to pass such orders as it
thought fit and in sub-s. (3) the word 'may' was used.
Except in those
cases where there were good grounds for not granting the pension, Govern·
ment was bound to make a grant to those who fulfilled the desired conditions and the word 'may' in the third sub-section though apparently discre·
tionary had to be read as 'must', [684 B·H].
Afaxv.·e/I on Interpretation of Statutes, referred to,
(ii) In passing orders on the appellants' application Government had
lo act in a quasi-judicial manner.
The appellants had to be given an
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
GOVINDRAO v. STATB (Hidayatlll/ah J,)
67 9
A
oppo11Unlty to state their case and were also entitled to know why their
claim had been rejected. [685 B-D].
M/1. Harl Nagar Sugar Mi/ls. Ltd. v: Shyam Sundar Jhunjhunwa/a and
Others [1962) 2 S.C.R. 339, referred to.
Order of the State Government set aside.
B
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:
Civil Appeal No. 182 of
1964.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
April 20, 1959, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 325 of 1955.
C
S.-V. Gupte, Solicitor-General, W. S. Barlingay, S. T. KhirwarD
kar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellants.
M. S. K. Sastri and M. S. Narasimhan for I. N. Shroff, for th~
respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
IDdayatullah J. The appellants claiming to be the descendants of former ruling chiefs in the Hoshangabad and Nimar
Districts of Madhya Pradesh applied under the Central Provinces
and Berar Revocation' of Land Revenue Exemptions Act, 1948, for
grant of money or pension as suitable maintenance for themselves.
E By that Act, every .estate, mahal, village or land which was
exempted from the payment of the whole or part of land revenue
by special grant of, or contract with the Crown, or under the
provision of any law or rule for the time being in force or in pursuance of.any other instrument was after the appointed date made
liable to land revenue from the year 1948-49, notwithstanding
F
anything contained in the grant, contract, law, rule or instrument.
The appellants held estates in the two districts on favourable
terms as Jahgirdars Maufidars and Ubaridars, and enjoyed an exemption from payment of land revenue amounting in the aggregate
to Rs. 27 ,828-5-0 yearly. On the passing of the Act the exempG tion was lost and they claimed to be entitled to grant of money
or pension under the provisions of the Act about to be set out.
They applied to the Deputy Commissioner, who forwarded their
application to the State Government. The State Government by
its order No. 993/XVl-4, dated April 26, 1955 rejected their
petition. No reasons are contained in that order.
H
The appellants thereupon filed a petition in the High Court
of Mudhya Pradesh under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ
of certiorari to quash the order of the State Government. In that
L!Sup,/6$-18
880
SUPREMI!
COURT
REPORTS
[1965) IS.C.R.
petition they contended that the rejection of their petition by the
A
State Government without giving any reasons amounted to no
decision at all and was an improper and illegal exercise of the
power vested in the State Government by s. 5 of the Act. The
State Government resisted the petition by contending that the
appeliants were not de>cendants of any former ruling chief and
further that the exercise of the power by the. State Government was
B
proper and legal.
The petition in the High Court was heard and disposed of by a
Full Bench. The learned Chief Justice, who delivered the judgmen• on behalf of the Full Bench held that th~ State Government
was not compelled to grant either money or pension because the
C
exercise of the power under s. 5 was discretionary and the petition,
therefore was incomp~tent. No other question was gone into by the
High Court even though a suit is barred under the provisions of
the Act and a petition under Art. 226 would appear to be the
only remedy in case the State Government failed to comply with
the terms of the Act, or acted in an illegal manner.
D
The Act consists of eight sections. The revocation of exemption from liability for land revenue is laid down bys. 3, the purp('/:1
of which has already appeared in this judgment. It is not necessary
to refer to that section in detail because in addition it speaks of
lands in Bcrar governed by the Bcrar Land Revenue Code and
E
of lands in Madhya Pradesh governed by the Central Provinces
Land Revenur Act, 1917 and Jays down the classes of such lands
and the special rules applicable to them. In the present appeal
we arc not concerned with these details and they may, therefore,
be put aside. Section 4 of the Act makes suitable amendments in
the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 and the Berar
F
Land Revenue Code consequent upon the provisions of s. 3 of the
Act. We need not attemp' to set·out these amendments. Section 5
then provides as follows :-
"5. Awards of money grants or pension.
( 1) Any person adversely affected by the provisions
of section 3 may apply to the Deputy Commissioner of
the district for the award of a grant or money or pension.
( 2) The Deputy Commissioner shall forward the
a!)plication to the Provincial Government, which may
pass such orders as it deems fit.
•
( 3) The Provincial Government may make a grant
of money or pensionG
H
GO VIND RAO v. STATE ( H idayatullah J.)
68 l
A
(i) for the maintenance or upkeep of any religious,
charitable or public institution or service of a
like nature, or
(ii) for suitable maintenance of any family of a
descendant from a former ruling chief.
B
( 4) Any amount sanctioned by way of grant of
money or pension under this section shall be a charge
on the revenues of the Province."
Section 6 bars the jurisdiction of civil courts. Section 8 enables
the Provincial Government to make rules for carrying out the
C
purposes of the Act. Section 7 grants power to the State Government to grant exemptions from payment of land revenue under
the Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1917 and the Berar Land
Revenue Code in whole or in part, as it may deem fit.
The short question in this appeal is whether the provisions of
s. 5(3) make it obligatory upon the State Government to make a
D
suitable grant of money or pension in case it is proved that the
applicant has lost the exemntion under the Act and is a descendant
from a former ruling chief? The Full Be11ch of the High Court
was of the view that there was no obligation on the State Government to make such a grant inasmuch as s. 5 (3) was discretionary.
The appellants contend that the view of the High Court of s. 5 (3}
E
is erroneous and the section is ma.ndatory notwithstanding the use
of language which appears to confer a discretion. provided the
other conditions of the sub-section are fulfilled.
Before we deal with this q11estion we· may 'also refer to the
rules which have been framed under s. 8 of the Act. These rules
F
were made for dealing with applications received under s. 5 ( l)
of the Act. They are six in 'l.lilllber. After defining the terms 'maufi',
'inam', 'maufidar' and 'inamdar', rule 3 says that on receipt of the
application the Deputy Commissioner may enquire into it personally or may transfer it to a Revenue Officer not below the rank of
Extra Assistant Commissioner for enquiry and report.
Rule 4
G
then provides what the enquiry should cover. Though the rule is
·divided into sub-rules (a) to (g), under sub-rules (a) to (e) the
enquiry is directed to ascertain the lands held by the applicant.
his income, class of maufi or inam and the details of the maufi and
inam. There were many maufidars, ubaridars, who were holding
lands under diverse titles and concessions. Sub-rules (a) to (e)
H
seem to apply to all the applicants. When, however, a maufi is held
by any religious, charitable or public institution or for any service
as stated in s. 5 ( 3 )( i) quoted above or is held for maintenance
LISup./65~19
682
SUPREME
COURT
REPORTS
[ 1965] I S.C.R.
by a descendant of a fonner ruling chief as mentioned in A
s. 5(3)(ii), sub-rules (f) and (g) apply in addition to sub-rules
(a) to (e). Under sub-rule (f) some special enquiry is required
to be made in respect of religious, charitable or public institutions
or service, such as, whether the institution should be continued
to be maintained or service continued to be rendered and the
minimum annual expenditure required for the maintenance of the
B
institution or the service. Sub-rule (g) then says :-
"In the case of maufi or inam for the maintenance
of a descendant of a fonner ruling chief the following
further infonnalion should also be furnished :-
c
This is followed by four sub-rules : the first lays down that
the minimum amount required to ensure suitable mainten¥ce of
the family should be staled after enquiry; the second requires that
any other source of income should be specified; the third requires
the enquiring officer to state the extent to which such a person
D
is dependent on maufi income and the fourth requires that his
loyalty to Government should be ascertained. Rule 5 then enjoin~
that after completing the enquiry the Deputy Commissioner should
make his report and his recommendation. Rule 6 provides that
the Deputy Commissioner should also consider whether it would
be desirable to exempt some land from liability to pay land revenae
E
in whole or part under s. 7 instead of making a money grant
under s. 5(3).
It is contended on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh that
the powers exercisable under the Act are in the discretion of the
·Government and there can be no remedy by way of a writ under
F
Art. 226 of the Constitution. It is pointed out in support of the
submission that sub-s. (2) of s. 5 confers on the Government complete discretion because it says
"that the Provincial
(State)
Government"
.
. "may pass such orders as it
deems fit" in respect of every application forwarded by the Deputy
G
Commissioner, and that sub-s. ( 3) is also worded in language
which is directory where it says ''The Provincial (State) Government may make a grant of money or pension etc." This view
appears to have been accepted in the High Court.
In our opinion, this contention cannot be supported if the
scheme of the fifth section is closely examined.
No doubt, the
H
Deputy Commissioner is required to make enquiries
and to
forward all applications to Government and Government has beea
A
B
c
GOVINDRAO v. STATE (Hidayatullah J.)
683
given the power to pass such orders as it deems fit but the operation of sub-s. (2) and the discretion in it relates to applications
in general while in respect of some of the applications the order
has to be made under the third sub-section where the discretion is
to a considerable extent modified.
The rules here help in the
understanding of the third sub section.
In all cases an enquiry has to be made which generally follows
a pattern disclosed by rule 4, sub-rules (a) to ( e). But in cases
of maufi or inam held by religious, charitable or public institutions
or service or in case of a maufi or inam for the maintenance of a
descendant of a former ruling chief additional enquiries have to
be made.
The rules highlight the distinction between revocation
of exemption in the case of persons belonging to two special categories and the revocation of exemption in the case of others. It
will be noticed presently that s. 5 of the Act also follows the same
scheme and the rules do no more than emphasi(;e the special
character of sub-s. ( 3) of s. 5.
Power has been conferred on
D Government to make some other lands free from land revenue so
that sometimes a grant of money or pension and sometimes exemption from land revenue may be ordered. It could hardly have
been intended that sub-s. (3) of s. ( 5) was to be rendered nugatory
in its purpose by the operation of the discretion conferred by
sub-s. (2). The two sub-sections have to be read separately because
E though the word "may" appears in both of them that word in
sub-s. (3) takes its meaning from an· obligation which is laid upon
Government in respect of certain institutions and persons if the
stated conditions are fulfilled. It is impossible to think that in the
case of a religious, charitable or public institution which must be
F
G
H
continued or in the case of descendants of former ruling chiefs,
Government possessed an absolute discretion to refuse to make a
grant of money or pension for their maintenance or upkeep even
though they satisfied all the conditions for such a grant and were
deserving of a grant of money or pension. The word "may" in
s. 5 (3) must be interpreted as mandatory when the conditions
precedent, namely, the existence of a religious, charitable or public
institutions which ought to be continued or of the descendants of a
ruling chief, ~ established. The words "may pass such orllers as
it deems fit" in sub-s. (2) mean no more than that Government
must make its orders to fit the occasion, the kind of order to be
made being determined by the necessity of the occasion. As stated
in Maxwel.l on the Interpretation of Statutes (11th edn. p. 231) :
"Statutes which authorise persons to do acts for the
benefit of others, or, as it is sometimes said. for the
684
SUPR01E
COURT
REPORTS
[ 1965] I S.C.R.
public goocl or the aclvancement of justice, have often
given rise to controversy when conferring the authority in
terms simply enabling and not mandatory.
In enacting
that they "may", or "shall. if they think fit." or, "shall
have power:· or that "it shall be lawful" for them to do
such acts a statute appears to use the language of mere
permission. but it has been so often decided as to have
become an axiom that in such cases such expressions
may havc-··to say the lc<bt-a compulsory force, and so
would seem to be modified by judicial exposition."
This is an instance where, on the existence of the condition precedent, the grant of money or pension becomes obligatory on the
Government notwithstanding that in s. 5 (2) the Government has
been given 1hc μower to pJss such orders as it deems fit and in
sub-s. (3) the word "may" is used. The word "may" is often read
as "sh;1ll" or '"rnu>t .. when !here is something in the nature of the
thing to he done which makes it the duty of the person on whom the
power is conferred to exercise the power.
Section 5(2) is discretionary because it takes into account all cases which may be
brought before 1he Government of persons claiming to be adversely
affected by the provisions of s. 3 of the Act. Many such persons
may have no cl;1ims at although they may in a general way be
said to have been adversely affected by s. 3. If the power was
to be discretionary in every case there was no need to• enact
further than sub-.<. (2). The reason why two sub-sections were
enacted is not far to seek. That Government nlay have to select
some for consideration under sub-s. (3) and some under s. 7 and
mav have to dismiss the claims of some others requires the con~er
ment of a discret1<1n and sub-s. 12) does no more than to give
that discretion to Government and the word "may'' in that subsection bears its ordinary meaning. The word "may" in sub-s. (3)
has, however. a different purrort. Under that sub-section Government must. if it is satisfied that an institution or service must be
continued or that there is a descendant of a former ruling chief,
grant money or pension to the institution or service or to ~
descendant of the former ruling chief, as the case may be.
Of
~ourse, it need not make a grant if the person claiming is not a
descendant of a fonner ruling chief or there is other reasonable
ground not to grant money or pension. But, except in those cases
where there are good grounds for • not granting the pension.
Government is bound to make a grant to those who fulfil the
required condition and the word "may" in the third sub-section.
though apparently discretionary has to be read as "must".
The
II
c
.0
E
F
G
II
A
B
c
D
E
F
GOVINDRAO v. STATE (Hidayatullah J.)
685
High Court was in error in thinking that the third sub-section also
like the second conferred an absolute discretion.
The next question is whether Government was justified in
making the order of· April 26, 1955?
That order gives no
reasons at all. The Act lays upon the Government a duty which
obviously must be performed in a judicial manner. The appellants do not seem to have been heard at all. The Act bars a suit
and there is all the more reason that Government must deal with
ouch case in a quasi-judicial manner giving an opportunity to the
claimants to state their case in the light of the.report of the Deputy
Commissioner.
The appellants were also entitled to know the
reason why their claim for the grant of money or a pension was
rejected by Government and how they were considered as not
falling within the class of persons who it was clearly intended by
the Act to be compensated in this manner. Even in those cases
where the order of the Government is based upon confidential
material this Court has insisted that reasons should appear when
Government performs curial or quasj:judicial functions
(see
Messrs Hari Nagar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Shyam Sunder Jhunjhunwa/a & Others( 1). The High Court did not go into any other
question at all because it rejected the petition at the threshold on
its interpretation of s. 5(3). That interpretation has been found
by us to be erroneous and the order of the High Court must be
set _aside.
As the order of Government does nc;>t fulfil the elementary requirements of a quasi-judicial process we do not consider it necessary to order a remit to the High Court. The order
of the State Government must be set aside and the Government
directed to dispose of the case in the light of our remarks and we
order accordingly.
The respondents shall pay the costs of the
appellants in this Court and the High Court.
A ppea/ allowed_
[1962) 2 S.C.K. 339,
• L!Sup./65 ~20