zgsS State of any fundamental right for the enforcement of -- . which alone a petition under Art. 32 is maintainable. Shrimati .hantabai We, therefore, agree that this petition should be dis- State :J" Bombay missed with costs. & Others BosE J.-This is a writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution in which the petitioner claims that Bose ]. her fundamental right to cut and collect timber in the forests in question has been infringed. • The petitioner's husband, Balirambhau Doye, was the Zamindar of Pandharpur. cfn April 26, 1948, he executed an unregistered document, that calkid itself a lease, in favour of his wife, the petitioner. The deed gives her the right to enter upon certain areas in the zamindari in order to cut and take out bamboos, fuel wood and teak. Certain restrictions are put on the cutting, and the felling of certain trees is prohibit;ed. But in the main, that is the substance of the right. The term of the deed is from April 26, 1948 to December 26, 1960, and the consideration is Rs. 26,000. The petitioner says that she worked the forests till 1950. In that year the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Ac!, 1950, which came into force on January 26, 1951, was enacted. Under s. 3 of that Act, all proprietary rights in the land vest in the State on and from the date fixed in a notification issued under sub-s. (1). The date fixed for the vesting in this area was March 31, 1951. After that, the petitioner was stopped from cutting any more trees. She therefore applied to the Deputy Commisioner, Bhandara, under s. 6(2) of the Act for validating the lease. The Deputy Commissioner held, on August 16, 1955, that the section did not apply because it only applied to transfers made after March 16, 1950; whereas the petitioner's transfer was made on April 26, 1948. But, despite that, he went on to hold that the Act did not ap~ly to transfers made before March 16, 1950, and so leases before that could not be questioned. He also held that the lease ;was genuine and ordered that the petitioner be allowed to work the forests subject to the conditi?ns set out in
