| 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 Proprietory Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (MP. 1 of 1951), ss. 8, 4, 5, 6. Section 4 (1) (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary 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, notwithstanding 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- after set forth shalt....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 Mahua leaves in certain estates. On the coming into effect of the Act and the issue 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 Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. v. State of 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 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.”Held, that whatever rights the respondents had acquired from the proprietors ceased to have effect by the operation of s. 4(1)(a) of the Act on the vesting of the estates in the State. It was not correct to say that s,6(1) of the Act saved those rights. That section referred to Pose 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. Clauses (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 claimed by them, therefore, could not be enforced against the State. |
