Abia Ahmed, OP Jindal Global University
INTRODUCTION
This paper seeks to analyze the case of Shantabai v. State of Bombay which holds a landmark judgment pertaining to section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1882, as well as one of the earliest cases that discussed the subject. The enforcement of fundamental rights was discussed in relation to the unregistered document granting the right to cut and take wood from forest land. Following that, it was discovered that the state had a proprietary interest. The issue in question was whether the claim based on the rights derived from the said document should be upheld. This case went on further to define the meaning of ‘standing timber’, timber trees, profits as a pendre or benefit arising from land, and a grant in immovable property.
FACTS OF CASE
The petitioner's husband, Shri Balirambhau Doye, was the owner of woods in eight distinct Tehsils. On April 26, 1948, he executed an unrecorded document in favor of his wife termed a lease. For the time period commencing on the date of the document and ending on December 26, 1960, the lease provided her the right to collect and appropriate all forms of wood (including building wood, fuel wood, and bamboo) from the aforementioned forests. However, there were regulations in place that limited how many of certain trees might be taken down. The rights given to the petitioner cost her Rs. 26,000, which she paid. The relevant document was not properly registered under the Indian Registration Act. The petitioner was a forest worker up until 1950.
On January 26, 1951, the Proprietary Rights Abolition (Estates, Mahals, and Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, which had been passed by the Madhya Pradesh legislature, took effect. All property rights in land vest in the State on the date stated in the notification issued under subsection (1), as per Section 3 of that Act. In this case, March 31, 1951, was chosen as the vesting date. As a result, the petitioner is no longer allowed to fell trees. Therefore, she submitted an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Bhandara, for lease validation in accordance with section 6(2) of the Act. Since the petitioner's transfers occurred on April 26, 1948, the Deputy Commissioner determined on August 16, 1955, that the section did not apply since it only pertained to transfers occurring after March 16, 1950. He went on to rule that leases signed before March 16, 1950, before the Act's effective date, were not subject to challenge. Additionally, he determined that the lease was legitimate and issued an order allowing the petitioner to operate the woods in accordance with the lease and the regulations set forth in Section 218(A) of the C.P. Land Revenue Act.
Comentarios