Judgement

CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR J.: These are petitions under Art. 32, Constitution of India, for directions or order or writs to enforce the fundamental rights of the petitioners to property by prohibiting the respondent, the State of Madhya Pradesh, from enforcing their alleged rights under the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950.

2. The several petitioners entered into contracts and agreements, with the previous proprietors at certain estates and mahals in the State under which it is said they acquired the rights to pluck, collect and carry away tendu leaves to cultivate, culture and acquire lac, and to cut and carry away teak and timber and miscellaneous species of trees called hardwood and bamboos. The contracts and agreements are in writing; some of them are registered. There is no dispute about their genuineness and it has not been alleged that they are collusive or fraudulent transactions. Their dates and the several sums of money paid as consideration are set out in the petitions. The petitioners allege that they have spent large sums of money in the exercise of their rights, and this fact too is not controverted.

3. Petitions Nos. 232, 233, 286. 309 and 320 of 1951 relate to tendu leaves which grow in shrub jungles and which are used in the manufacture of beedis or country-made cigarettes, a very extensive and competitive business carried on by some of the petitioners involving an outlay of one to two lakhs of rupees in some cases. For instance, 406 contracts are involved in Petition No. 232 of 1951; the consideration paid comes to Rs. 1,65,385 and the expenses are alleged to be in the region of Rs. 1,90,000. In Petition No. 233 of 1951 there are 785 contracts; the purchase money is Rs. 1,10,605 and the outlay by way of expenses is said in be Rs. 50,000.

4. Petition No. 319 of 195 relates to the culture and cultivation of lac, and there are several lease deeds of different dates enuring for different periods; two of them go up to the years 1966 and 1967.

5. Teak, timber, and hardwood form the subject-matter of the rights involved in Petition No. 350 of 1951. and the registered lease deed is dated 8-10-1949 and it is for a term of ten years.

6. Petition No. 351 of 1952 involves tendu leaves and miscellaneous forest produce and timber.

7. Petition No. 354 of 1951 relates to bamboo forests, and Petition No. 490 of 1951 to hardwood and bamboo.

8. The contentions of the petitioners are mainly three in number. They say that the rights acquired by them under these contracts and agreements were get before the passing of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, and that the legislation therefore does not affect them. It is urged next that they are non proprietors within the meaning of the Act and consequently the Act does not apply to them. Lastly, the question is raised that the Act itself is ultra vires , as many of is material provisions offend their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

9. The full title of the Act is the "Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates. Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act. 1950", and it is Madhya Pradesh Act I of 1951. It came into force on 26-1-1951. On the very next day there was a notification under S. 3 of the Act putting an end to an proprietary rights in estates, mahals and alienated villages and vesting the same in the State for the purposes of the State free of all encumbrances with effect from 31-3-1952.

10. The validity of the Act was questioned by the affected proprietors in Petition No. 166 of 1951 etc., - Visheshwar Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh , 1952 SCR 1029 before this Court, and the Act was held to be valid. The petitioners are concluded.

11. We have to consider only the other two points raised on behalf of the petitioners. It is clear from the provisions in the impugned Act that only those rights of the proprietor vest in the State which the proprietor had on the specified date. Section 3 provides that on and from a