LexBHAU RAM versus B. BAIJNATH SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1962 Bochliit14r Sfogh v. Tru Stak of Punjab .M udholkat J. 1962 March 7. 724 SUPREME COURT REPORTs [l96ZJ SUPP. would then be the action of the Government. Horo one of the Under Secretaries to the Government of Punjab informed the appellant by his letter dated !\fay, 1, 1957 that his representation '•had been considered 1tnd rejected", evidently by the State Government. Thh; would show that appropriate action had been taken under the relevant rule. Tho appeal is thus without substance and is dismissed. In view of the fact that the appellant is a displaced person with heavy responsibilities and with limited or possibly hardly any means we diroct that the costs shall be borntl by the parties concerned. BHAURAY v. B. BAIJNATH SINGH (P. B. GAJB!'!DltAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUP'l'A and N. RAJA· GOl'ALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) Pre-eniption-Stalt1tes entitling neighbours, co-sharera et.c. to pre-empt-C<msti!utionality of-If offend right to properly- Whethtr discriminatory-Rewa Stale Pre-emption Act, JY4G, s, 10-l'unjab Pre-emption Act, 1913(Punj. 1 of 1913), •· !G- Berar Land Revenue Code, 192S, Ch. X/V-Conatitution of /ndia,Art...14, 19(1)(!), 19(5). Section IO of the Rewa State !'re-emption Act, 1946, conferred the right of pre-emption on the ground, inter alia of vicinage. The proviso to s. 10 provided that among pre- emptors of the same class the nearer in relationship t<:> . the vendor will exclude the more remote. There were prov1s1ons in the Act for giving notice of an intended sale . to .persons having a right of pre.emption, for the loss of die ~1ght of pie-emption in case no action \vas taken on the notice and for fixation of a fair price by the Courl. It was contended 38.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 725 thats. IO offended Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and was 1161 void. Section 16 of the Punjab Pre•emption Act, 1913, as applied to Delhi, provided for pre-emption on six grounds, the first, third, fourth and sixth grounds being in favour of co. sharers, owners of common staircases, owners of common entrance from a street and owners of contiguous property. By s. 7 the operation of the Act was limited to localities where the custom of pre-emption was prevalent. There were pro- visions in the Act for giving of notice etc. as in lhe Rewa Act. Section 5 exempted agricultural property, shops, serai, katra, dhar~msala, moaque and other similar building from the purview of the Act. It was contended that s. 16 offended Art. 19(1)(f) and that the Act contravened Art. 14. Chapter 14 of the Berar Land Revenue Code, 1928, created a right of pre-emption in the holder of an interest in a survey-number when any person having an interest in any land in that survey-number sold it to a stranger provided that the interest sold was in unalienated land held for agricultural purposes. It was contended that this law of pre-emption was inconsistent with Art. 19(I)(f). ..-,z Held, (per Gajendragadkar, Wanchoo and Ayyangar,JJ., Sarkar and Das Gupta,JJ., Contra) that s. IO of the Rewa Act which provided for pre-emption on the ground of vicinage imposed unreasonable restrictions on the right to acquire, hold or dispose of property guaranteed by Art.19(1) (f) of the Consti- tution and was void. It placed restrictions on the right of the vendor to sell his property to a purcha~er of his choice at a price settled between them ; it exposed the purchaser to litigation even after the requisite notices had been given by the vendor. There was no advantage to the general public from such a law. The real reason behind a Jaw of pre· emption on the basis of vicinage was to prevent strangers i.e. people belonging to different religion, race or caste, from , acquiring property in any area populated by a particular fraternity or class of people. This could not be considered reasonable in view of the prohibition under Art. 15 of the C0nstitution of discrimination only on grounds of religion, race, caste, etc. Shri Audh Behari Singh v. Gajadltar Jaipuria, (1955) I. S.C.R. 70; Ibrahim Saib v. Muni Mir Udim Saib, (1870) 6 Mad. H.C.R. 26and1ffohomed Beg Amin v. Narayan Meghaji Patil, ( 1916) I.L.R. 40 Born. 358, referred to. Per Sarkar and Das Gupta, JJ. Section 10 of the Rew' i . . . . . • . . Bhau·Ram •• B. Baijnoth Singh 19GZ BhauRam v. B. BlliJn•lh SU.,A 726 SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. Act did not offend Art. 19(l)(f) and was
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.