HAR NARAINI DEVI & ANR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 15 S.C.R. 500 · Decided: 20-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
500
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 15 S.C.R.
[2022] 15 S.C.R. 500
500
HAR NARAINI DEVI & ANR
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 22957 of 2017)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 – s.50(a) – Hindu Succession
Act, 1956 – s.4(2) – Constitution of India – Article 254 – Hindu
Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005– General Clauses Act – ss.6(b),
6(c) –Person had three sons, all of them pre-deceased him – Dispute
w.r.t his agricultural property – His inheritance relating to the branch
of one of his son was succeeded by his grandsons (respondent nos.
3, 4) u/s.50(a), 1954 Act – Appellants are their mother and sister
who challenged the validity of s.50(a), 1954 Act having been denied
any rights in the inheritance along with respondent nos.3 and 4,
also contended that the 1956 Succession Act would prevail over
the 1954 Act – Writ petition dismissed by High Court – On appeal,
held: Question of repugnancy arises only if both the Parliament
and the State legislature have made law with respect to any one of
the matters enumerated in the Concurrent list (List III) – In the present
case, 1954 Act is not referable to any matter enumerated in List III
but it is referable to Entry 18 of List II – Thus, no question of
repugnancy would arise in view of Article 254 – Further, the property
in question is agricultural property – Thus, succession is governed
by the 1954 Act, hence, any amendment in the 1956 Act even if it
has a retrospective effect will have no bearing or impact on the
provisions of succession governed by the 1954 Act – On facts,
deletion of s.4(2) of the 1956 Act would not help the appellants –
Also, 1954 Act is a special law whereas the 1956 Act is a general
law – The existence or absence of s.4(2) in the 1956 Act would be
immaterial – Appeal fails – Interpretation of Statutes.
Interpretation of Statutes – Amendments – Operation of –
Deemed to apply prospectively – Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 –
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 –s.4(2) – Hindu Succession
(Amendment) Act, 2005 – Deletion of s.4(2) – Effect, if any, on
succession opening prior to 2005 – General Clauses Act – ss.6(b),
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
501
6(c) – Person had three sons who pre-deceased him – He died in
1997 – Dispute w.r.t his agricultural property – Held: Till 09.09.2005,
when the 2005 (Amendment) Act was enacted, s.4(2) remained on the
statute – In the present case, succession opened in 1997 i.e. prior to
09.09.2005 and the rights of the descendants in terms of s.50 became
crystallized on account of the said section r/w s.4(2) of the 1956 Act
– On account of ss.6(b) and 6(c) of General Clauses Act, the omission
of s.4(2) of 1956 Act cannot affect the previous operation of s.4(2) –
Effect of the deletion can only be in respect of successions which
opened on or after 09.09.05 – All amendments are deemed to apply
prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively or
intended to have been done so by the legislature.
Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 – Hindu Succession Act, 1956
– State enactment relating to Agricultural land tenures, a special
law – Held: The argument relating to 1956 Act being a special law
and 1954 being a general law is completely misconceived as any
State enactment relating to Agricultural land tenures is a special
law.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Repugnancy- Article 254 of the Constitution
The question of repugnancy arises only if both the
Parliament and the State legislature have made law with respect
to any one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent list (List
III). In the present case two enactments of 1956 and 1954 are
relatable to Entries in List III and List II respectively. The
relevant Entries in List III is Entry Nos.5 and 7 whereas relevant
Entry of List II is Entry No.18. Apart from the fact that a bare
reading of Article 254 reflects that it refers to repugnancy in law
made with respect to matters enumerated in the Concurrent list
(List III), this Court has also laid down that question of repugnancy
would not come into existence unless it is first established that
both enactments are under the Concurrent list (List III). In the
present case, 1954 Act is not referable to any matter enumerated
in List III but it is referable to Entry 18 of List II. Thus, no
question of repugnancy would arise in view of Article 254 of the
Constitution. The other part of the argument relating to 1956
Act being a special law and 1954 being a general law is complet

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