Summary
The Supreme Court held that the preferential acquisition right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act applies to inherited agricultural land. That right is integral to the succession regulated by the Act, rather than an independent rule governing every agricultural transfer. The purchaser’s appeal failed and contrary High Court decisions were overruled.
Issues
- Whether Section 22’s preferential right extended to agricultural land inherited by Class I heirs.
- Whether that right fell within Parliament’s competence over succession.
Provisions considered
- Section 22, Hindu Succession Act, 1956The preferential right of co-heirs extends to agricultural property inherited under the Act; it forms part of the succession scheme and its qualified power to transfer outside the family. (¶¶ 7, 18–21)
- Section 4(2), before its omission, Hindu Succession Act, 1956The former saving protected relevant laws governing tenancy-right devolution in agricultural holdings. The Court noted its deletion but did not decide the wider consequences of that deletion. (¶¶ 7, 17)
- Seventh Schedule, List III Entry 5 and List II Entry 18, Constitution of IndiaUnlike the 1935 legislative scheme, succession including agricultural succession falls within concurrent competence; inter vivos agricultural transfers remain within the State entry. (¶¶ 6, 14–16, 18–20)
Held
- The Constitution removed the former express exclusion of agricultural succession from the concurrent entry and removed devolution from the State land entry. Agricultural succession is consequently within concurrent legislative competence. (¶ 14–16)
- No competing State succession law was asserted for Himachal Pradesh. Section 22 therefore occupied the relevant field and applied to the inherited agricultural land here. (¶ 16)
- The source of the co-heirs’ title was succession under the Act. The preferential right could not be detached from that source; cases of joint purchase, even by siblings, were distinguished from inheritance. (¶ 18–20)
- The Section 22 right applied to agricultural land, sustaining the District Judge’s decree. High Court decisions holding to the contrary were overruled. (¶ 21)
Result
Appeal dismissed; decree recognizing and enforcing the co-heir’s preferential right affirmed. Contrary High Court decisions overruled. No order as to costs.