Case Summary: SHRIMATI SHANTABAI vs STATE OF BOMBAY (1958 AIR 532)

• Court- The Supreme Court of India.
• Bench- Justice Sudhi Ranjan Das (CJ), Justice T.L. Venkatrama Aiyyar, Justice S.K. Das, Justice A.K. Sarkar, and Justice Vivian Bose.
• Date of Judgement- 24th March, 1958.
• Relevant Provisions/Statutes- Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, and Alienated Land) Act, 1950; The Constitution of India; Indian Registration Act, 1908; Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

Facts of the case

The petitioner, Shrimati Shantabai, was the wife of Balirambhau Doye, who was a Zamindar and had certain forests in eight tehsils. Through a document which was styled as a lease deed, on 26th April 1948, he granted her the right to enter the forests and cut and remove wood, timber, and bamboo till 26th December 1960 for a consideration of Rs. 26,000/-. This deed was unregistered, but the genuineness of it and the intention of the parties had not been questioned. In 1950, when the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, and Alienated Land) Act was enacted, Section 3 of the said act conferred all proprietary rights of lands located in Madhya Pradesh upon the State from 31st March 1951. The petitioner was restricted from entering the forest and cutting wood, so she applied to the Deputy Commissioner of Bhandara, who held that the act only applied to deeds and transfers made after March 16, 1950, and it did not apply to her deed. He considered that her deed was genuine and allowed her to cut wood and granted permission to work in the forest. Later, the Divisional Forest Officer prohibited her from entering and working in the forest. He stopped her activities and forfeited the materials. The petitioner claimed that her fundamental rights had been violated and filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for this purpose.

Issues Raised-

1) Did the unregistered 1948 deed grant any proprietary rights to the petitioner?
2) Were the petitioner’s fundamental rights violated?

Arguments Advanced by the Petitioner-

The petitioner argued that the deed executed by her husband granted her proprietary rights till 1960, and when the State stopped her from entering the forest, her fundamental right was violated. It was argued that the rights conferred upon the petitioner were ‘profit-a-prendre’, which means that one has the right to take produce from that land or remove something from it. The case of Chhotebhai Jethabhai Patel was cited, and it was mentioned that such a license is enforceable by filing a petition under Article 32. Article 32 gives the citizens the right to move to the Supreme Court for the enforcement of their fundamental rights in case there is a violation. The Petitioner stated that her fundamental rights to hold property and carry on any business, occupation, trade, or profession were violated.

Arguments Advanced by Respondent-

The respondent argued that the deed was unregistered and, therefore, the petitioner had no proprietary right over the forest property. Even if the deed was considered valid, the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights Act transferred those rights to the State after its enforcement. So, the respondent stated that the petitioner had a personal contractual right enforceable only against her husband. Her fundamental right was not violated, and hence it was not enforceable against the State. The case of Ananda Behera vs State of Orissa was cited, and it was highlighted that in the said case, the court held that such rights were personal contractual or license-based rights and not fundamental rights enforceable against the state. It can be held as a breach of contract but not as a violation of a fundamental right.

Judgement of the Court-

The court held that the deed that was created by the petitioner’s husband in 1948 did not confer any fundamental rights upon her. It only created proprietary rights which were vested in the State through the Act passed in 1950. If the deed was a license, then it was extinguished when the land was vested in the State, and if it was a contract, then it was a personal right, and the petitioner can sue the grantor of those proprietary rights and claim compensation or damages. The State was not a party to this contract, so it is not bound to accept any liability.
As mentioned in the Transfer of Property Act 1882, Immovable Property includes land and things embedded into land or attached to the land. It was also separately mentioned that the rights over the produce obtained from trees are profit-a-prendre, and they are considered as immovable property. Such rights require registration under the Registration Act, and it was not done by the petitioner or her husband while executing the said deed. Since the deed was not registered, the petitioner had no fundamental right, and she could only seek contractual remedies, such as compensation or damages. The court followed the cited case of Ananda Behera and not Chhotebhai Jethabhai Patel. The court also stated that the document was not a proper lease since the definition of ‘lease’ as mentioned in the Transfer of Property Act refers to the right to enjoy immovable property, and this said deed only gave the petitioner the right to cut and remove wood, and not exactly enjoy the land.

Ratio Decidendi-

The court highly focused on the fact that a right arising out of contracts cannot be considered as a fundamental right and hence cannot be enforced by filing a writ petition under Article 32. A deed that is unregistered and dealing with immovable property cannot be considered valid and confers no valid rights. Even if the rights are valid, they are extinguished when a law is passed abolishing those rights.

Final Decision-

The petition filed under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution was dismissed by the court because there were no fundamental rights to be enforced, since it was observed that the right was contractual in nature. The case of Ananda Behera vs the State of Orissa was upheld, and the judgment was passed in favour of the Respondents.

References/Bibliography-

Statutes & Legal Provisions-

• The Constitution of India 1950, art 32
• The Transfer of Property Act 1882, s 3, s 105
• Registration Act 1908, s 17
• Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act 1950, s 3

Case laws-

• Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel And Co vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh (1953) 1953 AIR 108
• Ananda Behera And Another vs The State Of Orissa (1955) 1956 AIR 17

Websites and other-

• Shrimati Shantabai v State of Bombay (indiakanoon) https://indiankanoon.org/doc/963790/ accessed 28 August 2025
• Shantabai v State of Bombay Ors (1958) – Case Analysis (iPleaders blog, 25 April 2024) https://blog.ipleaders.in/shantabai-v-state-of-bombay-ors-1958-case-analysis/ accessed 28 August 2025