Judgment

S. R. DAS CJI. : We have had the advantage of perusing the judgment prepared by our learned Brother Bose, J., which he will presently read. While we agree with him that this application must be dismissed, we would prefer to base our decision on reasons slightly different from those adopted by our learned Brother. The relevant facts will be found fully set out by him in his judgment.

2. The petitioner has come up before us on an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the order made by the Respondent No. 3 on 19th March 1956, directing the petitioner to stop the cutting of forest wood and for a writ, order or direction to the Respondents not to interfere in any manner whatever with the rights of the petitioner to enter the forests, appoint her agents, obtain renewal passes, manufacture charcoal and to exercise other rights mentioned in the petition.

3. Since the application is under Art. 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner must make out that there has been an infringement of some fundamental right claimed by her. The petitioner s grievance is that the offending order has infringed her fundamental right under Art. 19 (1) (f) and 19 (1) (g). She claims to have derived the fundamental rights, which are alleged to have been infringed, from a document dated 26th April 1948, whereby her husband Shri Balirambhau Doye, the proprietor of certain forests in eight several Tehsils, granted to her the right to take and appropriate all kinds of wood - building wood, fuel wood and bamboos, etc. - from the said forests for a period from the date of the document up to 26th December 1960. The terms of the document have been sufficiently set out in the judgment to be presently delivered by Bose J. and need not be set out here. The petitioner has paid Rs. 26,000 as consideration for the rights granted to her. The genuineness of this document and the good faith of the parties thereto have not been questioned. The document, however, has not been registered under the Indian Registration Act.

4. The nature of the rights claimed by the petitioner has to be ascertained on a proper interpretation of the aforesaid document. We do not consider it necessary to examine or analyse the document minutely or to finally determine what we may regard as the true meaning and effect thereof, for, as will be presently seen, whatever construction be put on this document, the petitioner cannot complain of the breach of any of her fundamental rights.

5. If the document is construed as conveying to her any part or share in the proprietary right of the grantor, then, not being registered under the Indian Registration Act, the document does not affect the immovable property or give her any right to any share or interest in the immovable property. Assuming that she had acquired a share or interest in the proprietary right in spite of the document not having been registered, even then that right has vested in the State under S. 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estate, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 and she may in that case only claim compensation if any is payable to her under the Act. If the document is construed as purely a license granted to her to enter upon the land, then that license must be taken to have become extinguished as soon as the grantor s proprietary rights in the land vested in the State under S. 3 of the Act. If the document is construed as a license coupled with a grant, then the right acquired by her would be either in the nature of some profits-a-prendre which being an interest in land is immoveable property or a purely personal right under a contract. If the document is construed as having given her a profits-a-prendre which is an interest in land, then also the document will not affect the immovable property and will not operate to transmit to the petitioner any such profits-a-prendre which is in the nature of immovable property, as the document has not been registered under the Indian