SHRIMATI SHANTABAI versus STATE OF BOMBAY & OTHERS

SHRIMATI SHANTABAI versus STATE OF BOMBAY & OTHERS

The Supreme Court held that an unregistered document granting a right to cut and appropriate wood from forest land does not confer an enforceable proprietary interest or profits-a-prendre; proprietary rights in the land vested in the State under statute, and the petitioner's claim based on personal contractual rights could not constitute infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) or 19(1)(g). No fundamental rights were infringed and the Court dismissed the petition.

Parties
Petitioner: Shrimati Shantabai; Respondent: State of Bombay; Respondent: State of Madhya Pradesh; Respondent: R. Ganapathy Iy· er; Respondent: R. H. Dhebar; Respondent: I. N. Shroff
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 March 1958
Procedural Posture
Petition Under Article 32 / Final Disposition on Merits
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Fundamental Rights, Immoveable Property, Contract, Registration, Abolition of Proprietary Rights
Constitutional Law Property Law Fundamental Rights Immoveable Property Contract Registration Abolition of Proprietary Rights

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shrimati Shantabai

Petitioner

State of Bombay

Respondent

State of Madhya Pradesh

Respondent

R. Ganapathy Iy· er

Respondent

R. H. Dhebar

Respondent

I. N. Shroff

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Petition Under Article 32 / Final Disposition on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order by the Divisional Forest Officer infringed the petitioner's fundamental rights under Arts. 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g)
  2. 2 Whether an unregistered document conferring a right to cut and appropriate wood from forest land creates enforceable rights against the State after vesting by statute

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that an unregistered document granting a right to cut and appropriate wood from forest land does not confer an enforceable proprietary interest or profits-a-prendre; proprietary rights in the land vested in the State under statute, and the petitioner's claim based on personal contractual rights could not constitute infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) or 19(1)(g). No fundamental rights were infringed and the Court dismissed the petition.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • Petition under Article 32 dismissed with costs.