Source: http://www.rishabhdara.com/sc/view.php?case=4149
Timestamp: 2020-08-08 03:33:07
Document Index: 144937595

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art. 133', 'Art. 31', 'Art.\t31', 'Art. 31', 'Art. 226', 'Art. 226', 'Art. 226', 'Art. 13', 'Art. 31', 'Art.\n31', 'Art. 133', 'Art. 31', 'Art.\t226']

JASODABAI & SMT. RAMCHANDRABAI versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR
1970 AIR 1972	1970 SCR (3) 285
JASODABAI & SMT. RAMCHANDRABAI V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR [1969] RD-SC 331 (26 November 1969)
CITATION: 1970 AIR 1972	1970 SCR (3) 285
Constitution of India, Art. 133-Certificate-Circumstances in which High Court could not refuse certificate-Practice	and Procedure-Refusal of	certificate-Necessity	for giving reasons.
The appellants applied to the High CouRt for a	certificate seeking to appeal against the judgment and order of	the High Court dismissing	their	petitions challenging	the constitutionality of the Maharashtra	Agricultural Lands (Ceilings on Holdings) Act, 1961. The -High Court had	held that an earlier case had already laid down that the Act	was saved by Art. 31A and that because of its inclusion in	the Ninth Schedule to Act enjoyed the protection of Art.	31B.
-The High Court refused the certificate and gave no reasons for the refusal. In appeal to. this Court against the order refusing certificate it was urged that in view of	the decision of this Court	in Ramesh v. Seth Gendalal Motilal Patni the certificate ought to have granted	because	the order was made in the exercise of extra-ordinary original jurisdiction in a civil proceeding and the valuation of	the claim was well over Rs. 20,000.
HELD :	(i) Article 133 is wide enough to take in civil proceedings decided in the High Court in the exercise of the extra-ordinary jurisdiction provided some civil right of the patty is decided. The appellants were attempting to	save their property by challenging the validity of the Act	and the decision of the Court that the Act was valid directly affected the civil rights of the parties in properties	well over the mark in value. In these circumstances the	High Court could not refuse the	certificate.
The case was not remanded for certification because it would be an exercise in futility to ask the High Court to certify the cases when the appeals that would follow must inevitably fail, as this Court had held the Act to be intra vires	and it was protected by Art. 31B of the Constitution. State of Maharashtra v. Madhavrao Damodar Patilchand. [1968] 3 S.C.R.
(iii) It is desirable to state in brief why the	certificate is refused, since, much depends on whether the civil rights of the parties are passed on or not by the judgment proposed to be	appealed against. Again, if the court	refused to exercise jurisdiction under Art. 226 without deciding	the civil rights claimed, it is better to say so while refusing the certificate.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil -Appeals Nos. 1554	and 1555 of 1966.
286 G. L.	Sanghi, D. N. Mishra, J. B.	Dadachanji, 0. C.
Mathur, and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants (in both the appeals) .
M. S.	K. Sastri and S. P. Nayar, for the respondents	(in both the appeals).
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, C.J. This order ill govern the	disposal of Civil Appeals Nos. 1554 and 1555 of 1966.
The two appellants, seeking to appeal against	the common judgment and order of the, Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), September 10,	1965, in proceedings under Art. 226 of	the Constitution, applied	to the Division Bench of the	High Court for a certificate under Arts. 132 and 133 (1) (a) or (b) and/or (c) of the Constitution. Their applications were summarily dismissed ,on December 6, 1965. The present	two appeals (consolidated for hearing) are by special leave	and are against the order refusing certificate. The appellants contend that they were entitled to a certificate as of right as laid down in Ramesh and Anr. v. Seth Gendalal Motilal Patni and Ors.(1) The other side opposes., The appellants and 3 others had, by their several petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution	asked that certain notices issued under s. 17(2) of the Act for declaration of lands in excess of the ceilings as surplusand requiring that they be surrendered,	be quashed on the ground-that	the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands ('Ceilings on Holdings)	Act 1961 (27 of 1961) offended Arts. 14, 19 and	31 and	was therefore void under Art. 13. The Divisional Bench disposed of the	five petitions by a common judgment and order on September 10,	1965 dismissing them.	It was held	that barring S. 28, the Act was already held to	be validly enacted in a decision of the High Court in another petition decided or October 25, 1968. The earlier case had laid down that the Act was saved by Art. 31-A. The Divisional Bench also pointed out that the Act was included	in the	9th Schedule to the Constitution and enjoyed protection of	Art.
31-B.	That too was held in yet another petition.	The learned	counsel attempted to urge some new grounds but	was not allowed to do so.	The petitions were ,dismissed	but without costs., In pressing the applications for certificate the petitioners pointed out that 1976 acres of dry crop lands were involved and were likely to be declared surplus and asked to be surrendered and that at a valuation of Rs. 1,000 per acre, the value of the subject matter in the High Court and on appeal to this Court was well over the mark. They claimed a certificate as of right. The (1) [1966] 3 S.C.R. 198.
287 High Court refused the certificate but gave no reasons	for the refusal.
In these appeals it	is submitted that in view of	the decision of this Court Ramesh and Anr. v. Seth Gendalal Motilal Patni	and Ors.(1), the certificate ought to	have been granted because the order was made in the exercise of extraordinary original jurisdiction in a civil proceeding and the valuation of the claim was well over Rs. 20,000. It is @ubmitted that the appeals satisfied all the tests	laid down by this Court in the earlier case.
There is considerable force in the submissions.	As pointed out in the earlier case Art. 133 is wide enough to take in civil proceedings decided in the High Court in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction provided some civil right of the	party is decided. The appellants before the	High Court were attempting to save their property by	challenging the validity of the Act and the decision of the Court	that the Act was valid directly affected the civil rights of	the parties in properties well over the mark in value. In these circumstances,	the High Court could not	refuse	the certificate. We would have, therefore, seriously considered remanding the	case to the High Court for the	grant of a certificate but for two things. Special leave was granted on May 5, 1966. Since then on April 10, 1968, in State of Maharashtra etc. v. Madhavrao Damodar Patilchand and	Ors.
etc..(') this Court has held the Act to the intra vires	and the Act is also included in	the 9th Schedule and is protected by Art. 31-B of the Constitution. It will be an exercise in futility to ask the High Court to	certify	the cases when the appeals that will follow must necessarily and inevitably fail. It is better to save circuitry of action and to dismiss the appeals before us. We order	accordingly but make no order about costs.
We may say here that it is desirable to state in brief	why the certificate is refused since much depends on whether the civil rights of. the parties are passed on or not by	the judgment proposed to be appealed against. Again, if	the Court refuses to exercise jurisdiction under Art.	226 without	deciding the civil rights claimed, it is better to say so while refusing the certificate.