BABU RAM versus SANTOKH SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 926 · Decided: 07-03-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
926                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
BABU RAM
v.
SANTOKH SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS
AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 2553 of 2019)
MARCH 07, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
s. 22 – Preferential right to acquire property in certain cases
– Applicability of s. 22 to agricultural land – Held: Preferential
right given to an heir of a Hindu u/s. 22 is applicable even if the
property is an agricultural land – However, s. 22 is not applicable
in cases of devolution of tenancy rights with respect to agricultural
holdings.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case it is nobody’s case that the
matter relating to succession to an interest in agricultural lands
is in any way dealt with by any State legislation operating in the
State of Himachal Pradesh or that such legislation must prevail
in accordance with the principles under Article 254 of the
Constitution. The field is occupied only by Section 22 of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 insofar as State of Himachal Pradesh is
concerned. The High Court was, therefore, absolutely right in
holding that Section 22 of the Act would operate in respect of
succession to agricultural lands in the State. [Para 16][942-C, D]
1.2 Though, succession to an agricultural land is otherwise
dealt with under Section 22 of the Act, the provisions of Section
4(2) of the Act, before its omission, had made it clear that the
provisions of the Act would not apply in cases inter alia of
devolution of tenancy rights in respect of agricultural holdings.
Thus, the effect of Section 4(2) of the Act before its deletion was
quite clear that, though the general field of succession including
in respect of agricultural lands was dealt with under Section 22 of
[2019] 2 S.C.R. 926
926
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
927
the Act, insofar as devolution of tenancy rights with respect to
agricultural holdings were concerned, the provisions of Section
22 would be inapplicable. The High Court was, therefore,
absolutely right in its conclusion. However, with the deletion of
Section 4(2) of the Act, now there is no exception to the
applicability of Section 22 of the Act. [Para 17][942-F, H]
1.3 The “right in or over land, land tenures ….” are within
the exclusive competence of the State legislatures under Entry
18 of List II of the Constitution. Pre-emption laws enacted by
State legislatures are examples where preferential rights have
been conferred upon certain categories and classes of holders in
cases of certain transfers of agricultural lands. The preferential
rights by s. 22 is considered with three illustrations. (a) Three
persons, unrelated to each other, had jointly purchased an
agricultural holding, whereafter one of them wished to dispose of
his interest. The normal principle of pre-emption may apply in
the matter and any of the other joint holders could pre-empt the
sale in accordance with rights conferred in that behalf by
appropriate State legislation. (b) If those three persons were real
brothers or sisters and had jointly purchased an agricultural
holding, investing their own funds, again like the above scenario,
the right of pre-emption will have to be purely in accordance with
the relevant provisions of the State legislation. (c) But, if, the
very same three persons in illustration (b) had inherited an
agricultural holding and one of them was desirous of disposing of
his or her interest in the holding, the principles of Section 22 of
the Act would step in. The source of title or interest of any of the
heirs in the third illustration, is purely through the succession
which is recognized in terms of the provisions of the Act. Since
the right or interest itself is conferred by the provisions of the
Act, the manner in which said right can be exercised has also
been specified in the very same legislation. Therefore, the content
of preferential right cannot be disassociated in the instant case
from the principles of succession. They are both part of the same
concept. [Para 18, 19][943-B-H]
BABU RAM v. SANTOKH SINGH (D) THR. HIS LRS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
928                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2019] 2 S.C.R.
1.4 When the Parliament thought of conferring the rights
of succession in respect of various properties including
agricultural holdings, it put a qualification on the right to transfer
to an outsider and gave preferential rights to the other heirs with
a designed object. Under the Shastrik Law, the inter

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.