Judgment

SINHA, C.J.I. : In these appeals the common question of law that arises for determination is whether the respective grants made by the outgoing proprietors in favour of the respondents convey any rights to them, which could be enforced against the appellant, the State of Madhya Pradesh, after the coming into effect of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (Madhya Pradesh Act I of 1951)-which will be referred to hereinafter as the Act.

2. It is not necessary to state the facts of each case in any detail because they are not disputed, and nothing turns on the difference in facts. In Civil Appeal No. 229 of 1961, the respondent obtained, by virtue of registered documents, the grant of 24 villages in Balaghat and Mandla Districts, for propagating lac, the lease to expire on July 31,1955. In Civil Appeal No. 281 of 1961, by virtue of two unregistered agreements, the respondent obtained the right to collect tendu leaves in 37 villages upto July 31,1963. In Civil Appeal No. 282 of 1961, the respondent obtained similar rights from the proprietor by virtue of registered agreements, extending up to the end of the year1962. In Civil Appeal No. 283 of 1961, the respondent obtained the right to collect fruits and flower of Mahua trees from the proprietor, extending down to the year 1969, by virtue of three registered leases.

3. On the coming into effect or the Act and the issue of the necessary notifications under S. 3 of the Act, the appellant, the State of Madhya Pradesh, took possession of all the villages comprised in the respective estates of the proprietors, who were the grantors of the several interests indicated above in favour of the respondents. The state refused to recognise the rights claimed by the respondents by virtue of the transactions aforesaid in their favour.

4. In each case, the High Court relying upon the decision of this Court in Chhotabhai Jethabai Patel and Co. v. State of Madhya Pradesh,1953 S C R 476 granted the relief claimed by the respondents, and held that the several interests claimed by the respondents had not been affected by the coming into force of the Act. The High Court did not accept the contention raised on behalf of the State that as a result of the coming into operation of the Act, all these interests which were the subject matter of dispute in all these cases had been extinguished, in view of the provisions of S. 4 (1) (a) of the Act. Soon after the decision aforesaid of this Court, the matter was re-examined by this Court in the case of Shantabai v. State of Bombay, 1959 S C R 265 and in the case of Mahadeo v. State of Bombay, (1959) Supp (2) SCR 339

5. The earliest decision of this Court with reference to the Act is a decision of the Division Bench of three Judges in 1953 SCR 476 In that case, which was a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners had entered into various contracts and agreements with the proprietors of the estates, before the dates on which the estates vested in the State, under the Act, under which they were entitled to pluck, collect and carry away tendu leaves, and to cultivate, culture and acquire lac, as also to cut and carry away teak and timber. The petitioners had complained to this Court that the State of Madhya Pradesh had been interfering with their rights thus acquired from the outgoing proprietors. This Court held, on a construction of the contracts, that the grants in essence and effect were licences to the petitioners who were neither proprietors, nor persons having any interests in the proprietary rights through the proprietors, nor were their interests encumbrances within the meaning of that expression in S. 3 (1) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the court granted the writs in favour of the petitioners. Naturally, the High Court granted appropriate reliefs to the respondents in this batch of cases, relying upon this decision of this Court.

6. In the case of 1959 SCR 265 th