Shrimati Shantabai, the petitioner, was granted the right to cut and use wood from certain forests within her husband’s Zamindari through an unregistered document. However, with the enactment of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, all proprietary rights over such lands were transferred to the State. Despite this, she obtained permission from the Deputy Commissioner under the Act to continue working in the forest and began cutting trees. Subsequently, the Divisional Forest Officer took action against her, canceling her authorization and confiscating the timber she had already collected. When she appealed to the State Government, her appeal was rejected. Left with no alternative, she approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, arguing that her fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) (right to property) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession or trade) had been violated.
Issues before the Court
- What kind of rights, a claim over immovable or movable property was established in her favour?
- Are the rights granted to the petitioner under Article 32 of the Constitution by the unregistered instrument of April 26, 1948 enforceable fundamental rights?
Arguments before the Court
The petitioner argued that her fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(f) (right to property) and Article 19(1)(g) (right to practice any profession or trade) were violated when she was prohibited from logging in the forest. She contended that an unregistered deed dated April 26, 1948, gave her a valid right to extract timber until December 1960, and since these rights were granted before the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950 came into effect, they should not be affected by it. She further relied on an order issued by the Deputy Commissioner on August 16, 1955, which permitted her to continue working in the forest under specific conditions.
The State, however, argued that the unregistered document had no legal validity since it required registration under the Indian Registration Act. Additionally, even if such rights were granted, they were extinguished once the property was transferred to the State under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950. The respondents emphasized that the petitioner’s rights were merely contractual and did not amount to fundamental rights enforceable through a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the State contended that its action to prevent logging was lawful, as it had become the legal owner of the forest following the land reform laws. Thus, there was no violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights.
Analysis of the Court
In the case of Shantabai v. State of Bombay, the court dismissed the petitioner’s claim, ruling that her fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and 19(1)(g) were not violated. The court emphasized that there was no need for an in-depth analysis of the document in question because, regardless of how it was interpreted, the petitioner’s claim was unsustainable.
If the document intended to transfer ownership rights in land, it would be invalid since it was neither registered nor legally enforceable under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act. Even if it was considered a profits-à-prendre (a right to extract resources from another's land), such rights are classified as immovable property and require compulsory registration.
Alternatively, if the document was merely a contract granting personal rights, the petitioner still could not claim a violation of fundamental rights, as the State had neither taken over nor interfered with the contract. In such a case, any grievance would amount to a civil dispute, not a constitutional issue. The court, therefore, upheld the validity of the government’s actions and rejected the petition.
