NAEEM BANO ALIAS GAINDO versus MOHAMMAD RAHEES & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1492 · Decided: 22-11-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.V. NAGARATHNA, N KOTISWAR SINGH · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1492 : 2024 INSC 1000
Naeem Bano Alias Gaindo 
v. 
Mohammad Rahees & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 13050 of 2024)
22 November 2024
[B.V. Nagarathna and  
Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Inconsistency between the U.P. State amendment and the 
subsequent Parliamentary amendment to Section 106, Transfer of 
Property Act, 1882. Whether in view of the Parliament amending 
a provision subsequent to a State legislature’s amendment of 
a provision of law in the Concurrent List, the Parliamentary 
amendment would apply.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Article 254; Entry 6, List III, Concurrent 
List of the Seventh Schedule – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – 
s.106 – Legislature of State of U.P. amended Section 106 by 
amendment dated 30.11.1954 by which the words “fifteen 
days’ notice” in Section 106 of the T.P. Act were substituted 
by “thirty days’ notice” and the substituted clause prevailed 
in the State of U.P – Parliament by Act 3 of 2003 amended 
Section 106 w.e.f 31.12.2002 – In view thereof, the substitution 
in Section 106 made by the Legislature of the State of U.P., if 
stood repealed and Section 106 as amended w.e.f 31.12.2002 
by the Parliament, would apply:
Held: Yes – Article 254 is an instance of Parliamentary supremacy – 
When there is an inconsistency between a law made by the 
Parliament and a law made by the Legislature of a State, Article 
254 would apply – The Proviso to clause (2) qualifies the exception 
provided in Clause (2) to Article 254 – It empowers the Parliament 
to repeal or amend a repugnant State law, either directly, or by 
itself enacting a law repugnant to the State law with respect to 
the ‘same matter’ – The subject “transfer of property other than 
agricultural land” is one which falls within Entry 6, List III and both the 
[2024] 11 S.C.R. 
1493
Naeem Bano Alias Gaindo v. Mohammad Rahees & Anr.
Parliament and the State Legislatures have legislative competence 
to make laws on the said subject including enacting an amendment 
to any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Proviso 
to Clause 2 of Article 254 applies to the present case – W.e.f 
31.12.2002, the Parliamentary amendment would apply – The U.P. 
amendment to Section 106 would pale into insignificance owing 
to implied repugnancy and inconsistency between the U.P. State 
amendment and the Parliamentary amendment to Section 106 of 
the T.P. Act in the year 2003 even if the earlier U.P. amendment had 
been reserved for consideration of the President and had received 
the Presidential assent – Thus, on the Parliament amending a 
provision subsequent to a State legislature’s amendment of a 
provision of law found in the Concurrent List, the Parliamentary 
amendment would apply – Impugned order set aside – High Court 
to dispose of the respondent-tenants revision petition in view of 
the observations made and on merits as expeditiously as possible. 
[Paras 8.1, 8.4, 9.4-9.8]
Case Law Cited
T. Barai v. Henry Ah Hoe [1983] 1 SCR 905 ; Hoechst 
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar [1983] 3 SCR 130; Zaverbhai 
Amaidas v. State of Bombay [1955] 1 SCR 799; Gauri Shankar 
Gaur v. State of UP [1993] Supp. 1 SCR 667; Innoventive Industries 
Ltd. v. ICICI Bank [2017] 8 SCR 33 – referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India; Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Transfer of 
Property (Amendment) Act, 2002.
List of Keywords
Article 254 of the Constitution of India; Clause 2 of Article 254; 
Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Amendment; U.P. State 
amendment to Section 106; Parliamentary amendment to Section 
106; Concurrent List; Entry 6, List III; Repugnancy; Inconsistency; 
State amendment; Parliamentary amendment; Substitution; 
Repealed; Amended; Law made by the Parliament; Law made by 
the Legislature of a State; “fifteen days’ notice”; “thirty days’ notice”; 
Repugnant State law; Substituted clause; “transfer of property 
1494
[2024] 11 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
other than agricultural land”; Legislative competence; President; 
Presidential assent; Parliamentary supremacy; Notice for ejectment. 
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 13050 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.11.2022 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad in MUA227 No. 8207 of 2017
Appearances for Parties
S. K. Verma, Chandra Shekhar, Prashant Shekhar, Ashwani Saini, 
Pawan Silmana, Advs. for the Appellant.
Irshad Ahmad, Sanobar Ali Qureshi, Neeraj Kumar, Abd

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