http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: JASODABAI & SMT. RAMCHANDRABAI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/11/1969

BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ) GROVER, A.N. RAY, A.N. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN DUA, I.D.

CITATION:  1970 AIR 1972            1970 SCR  (3) 285

ACT: 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.

HEADNOTE: 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. Ramesh v. Seth Gendalal Motilal Patni, [1966] 3 S.C.R. 198. 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.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

712. (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.

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil -Appeals Nos. 1554  and 1555 of 1966.  Appeals by special leave from the orders dated December  6, 1965  of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Misc.  Civil Applications Nos. 170 and 172 of 1965. 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

(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. R.K.P.S.                      Appeals dismissed. (1)  [1966] 3 S.C.R. 198. (2)  [1968] 3 S.C.R. 712. 288