Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. The archaic right of pre-emption based on consanguinity is in question in the several thousand writ petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The constitutional validity of sec. 15 of the Punjab Pre- emption Act, 1913 was applicable in the State of Haryana which incorporates this right is challanged. The State of origin of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, the State of Punjab, has repealed the Act in 1973. The Act, however, continues to be in force in the State of Haryana which originally formed part of the State of Punjab. The vires of sec.15(1)(a) of the Act was questioned in this Court in Ram Sarup v. Munshi and Ors. [1963] 3 S.C.R. 858 on the ground that it offended the fundamental right guaranteed by sec.19(1)(f) of the Constitution. It was ruled by a Constitution Bench that there was no infringement of Art.19(1)(f) and that the provision was valid. The validity of sec.15 is now impugned primarily on the ground that it offends Arts. 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

The Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 repealed the Punjab Pre-emption Act of 1905 and sec.12 of the 1905 Act which corresponded to sec.15 of the 1913 Act was as follows:-

"12. Subject to the provisions of section 11, the right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property shall vest-
(a) in the case of the sale of such land or property by a sole owner or occupancy tenant, or when such land or property is held jointly, by the co-sharers, in the persons who but for such sale would be entitled to inherit the property in the event of his or their decease, in order of succession;
(b) where the sale is by a female of land or property to which she has succeeded through her husband, or through her son in case the son has inherited the land or property sold from his father, the right of pre-emption shall vest,- FIRST, in the son or daughter of such (husband of the) female;

SECONDLY, in the husband's brother or husband's brother's son of such female."

Agricultural land has been defined in the Act to mean land as defined in the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, not including the rights of a mortgagee, whether usufructuary or not, in such land. 'Member of an agricultural tribe' and 'Group of agricultural tribes' are to have the same meanings assigned to them respectively under the Punjab Alienation of Land Act. The Punjab Alienation of Land Act has been repealed, but the definitions continue to have force for the purposes of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. Section 4 of the Punjab Preemption Act states what the right of Pre-emption is. It says :

We may first refer to two decisions of this court where the court had occasion to consider the question of the constitutional validity of the right of pre-emption incorporated in the Rewa State Pre-emption Act and the Punjab Pre-emption Act in relation to Art. 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.

In Bhau Ram v. B. Baijnath Singh [1962] Suppl, 3 S.C.R. 724, a Constitution Bench of this court had occasion to consider the question whether a provision of the Rewa State Pre-emption Act which gave a right of pre-emption based on vicinage and the provisions of the Punjab Pre- emption Act, 1913 which gave a right of pre-emption to co- sharers offended Art.19(1)(f) of the Constitution. It was held that a right of pre-emption by vicinage offended Art.19(1)(f) and that a right of pre-emption in favour of co-sharers did not. While dealing with the provision of the Rewa Act relating to pre-emption by vicinage, the Constitution Bench not only held that the right to pre- emption by vicinage offended Art. 19(1)(f), but also appeared to indicate that the right might also offend the fundamental right guaranteed by Art.15. Wanchoo, J., speaking for the court said :