LexJAGMOHAN AND ANOTHER versus BADRI NATH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 2 S.C.R. 123 : 2024 INSC 86 Jagmohan and Another v. Badri Nath And Others (Civil Appeal No. 1753 of 2024) 06 February 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Exemption of pre-emption as granted vide notification dated 08.10.1985, if available to the urban immovable property on which right of pre-emption was sought to be exercised by the tenants. Headnotes Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 – ss. 16, 8(2), 3(1), (3) – Person in whom right of pre-emption vests in an urban immovable property – Tenants were in the property from the year 1949 onwards where the rolling mill had been set up – Property was an urban immovable property, located in a municipal area of Jagadhri – Owners of the property sold the property to the vendee by way of sale deed – Suit filed by the tenant exercising right of pre-emption of sale, claiming preferential right to purchase the property – Vendee’s case that pre-emption did not apply – Suit allowed by the courts below – Exemption of pre-emption as granted vide notification dated 08.10.1985, if available to the said property: Held: If the said notification is read with reference to the powers available with the State Government to grant exemption from pre-emption, it is evident that the same has been granted with reference to land only and not the immovable property – s. 8(2) uses two terms independently, clearly suggests that the land and the immovable property have different meanings – s. 15 also provides right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property – Thus, the provisions of the 1913 Act, if read with the Scheme of the Act, makes it clear that the land and the immovable property are two different terms – Immovable property is more than the land on which certain construction has been made – As the notification limits its application for taking away the right of pre-emption only with reference to sale of land 124 [2024] 2 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports falling in the areas of any municipality, the same will not come to the rescue of the vendee – It is sale of immovable property, which is more than the land as a rolling mill had already been set up on the land, which was in occupation of the tenants – Also, the issue regarding limitation for filing of the suit is misconceived – Thus, orders of the courts below upheld. [Paras 14-19] Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 – s. 3(3) and 2(3) – Term ‘land’ and ‘immovable property’ – Distinction between: Held: Provisions of the 1913 Act, if read with the Scheme of the Act, it is clear that the land and the immovable property are two different terms – s. 8(2) uses two terms independently, clearly suggests that the land and the immovable property have different meanings – Immovable property is more than the land on which certain construction has been made – Definition of immovable property, in s. 3(26) of the 1897 Act, which includes land, means something more than the land. [Paras 15, 16] Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 – s. 3(1), (3) – Term ‘agricultural land’ and ‘urban immovable property’ – Definition of. [Para 12] Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900 – s. 2(3) – Term ‘land’ – Definition of. [Para 12] General Clauses Act, 1897 – s. 3(26) – Term ‘immovable property’ – Definition of. [Para 16] Case Law Cited Shyam Sunder and others v. Ram Kumar and another, [2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 115 : (2001) 8 SCC 24; Sandeep Bansal v. M. L. Hans and others R.S.A. No. 2109 of 1998 – referred to. List of Acts Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913; Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900; General Clauses Act, 1897; Limitation Act, 1963. List of Keywords Pre-emption; Exemption of pre-emption; Right of pre-emption; Custom of pre-emption; Notification dated 08.10.1985; Tenants; Preferential right to purchase the property; Urban immovable property; Land; Immovable property; Agricultural land; Village immovable property; Rolling mill; Limitation. [2024] 2 S.C.R. 125 Jagmohan and Another v. Badri Nath and Others Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1753 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2015 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No.2023 of 1992 Appearances for Parties Shish Pal Laler, Hitesh Kumar, Atul, Vedant Pradhan, Mrs. Kadambini, Ravi Panwar, Advs. for the Appellants. Neeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. Adv., Sanjay Singh, Siddharth Jain, Umang Shankar, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.