9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (9) TMI 1451 - SC - Indian LawsConstitutional Validity of Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 - ultra vires of Articles 14, 15, 254 and 21 of the Constitution of India - rights of inheritance denied. Repugnancy - Article 254 of the Constitution - HELD THAT - 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 this respect it would be appropriate to refer to the law laid down by this Hon ble Court in the case of M/S. INNOVENTIVE INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS ICICI BANK ANR. 2017 (9) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT - It is held therein that the question of examining repugnancy would not apply at all unless it is first established that both enactments under the Central and the State are with respect to matters enumerated 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. Deletion of Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act - HELD THAT - Till 2005, to be specific 09.09.2005, when the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 was enacted, the aforesaid provision remained on the statute. It is not in dispute that the property in question is agricultural property, and therefore, in 1997 at the time when Mukhtiyar Singh died, the devolution of interest (inheritance) would be determinable on the said date, in accordance with the law existing at that time. In 1997 Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act, was very much on the statute, its subsequent deletion would not have any impact on the rights of inheritance, which had already accrued and crystallised, prior to the amendment. Therefore, on facts deletion of Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act would not help the appellants - It is well settled that all amendments are deemed to apply prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively or intended to have been done so by the legislature. The deletion of Section 4(2) took place w.e.f 09.09.2005. Therefore, the effect of the deletion can only be in respect of successions which opened on or after 09.09.2005. This is because under Section 6(b) and 6(c) of the General Clauses Act repeal cannot affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed and cannot affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed and cannot affect any right which may have been acquired or accrued - In the present case, it is to be held that succession has opened prior to 09.09.2005, the rights of the descendants in terms of Section 50 became crystallized on account of the said Section read with Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act. Therefore, the deletion of Section 4(2) cannot have retrospective effect. Gender bias/ women empowerment - HELD THAT - Once it is upheld that there can be no challenge to the 1954 Act as the said legislation is included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution of India, this argument also has no legs to stand. Effect of the judgment in the case of Babu Ram 2019 (5) TMI 1975 - SUPREME COURT - HELD THAT - Reliance placed upon the judgment in the case of Babu Ram is of no help to the appellant. The case of Babu Ram related to State of Himachal Pradesh where there is no State enactment legislated covering the matters mentioned in Entry 18 of List II that is to say that the State of Himachal Pradesh has no local enactment covering agricultural land tenures. It was in such circumstances that this Court held that succession of agricultural land would be governed by the 1956 Act. It would be worthwhile to mention that in the judgment of Babu Ram itself this Court clarified that had there been a state enactment covering the field of Entry 18 List II of Seventh Schedule, the rights over agricultural land would have been governed by the same. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. 2. Repugnancy between the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 3. Impact of the deletion of Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 4. Gender discrimination under Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. 5. Applicability of the judgment in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. 6. Relevance of the judgment in Babu Ram vs. Santokh Singh and others. Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954: The appellants challenged Section 50(a) of the 1954 Act as being ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 254, and 21 of the Constitution, arguing that it discriminated against women. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, citing the protection extended to the 1954 Act under Article 31(B) of the Constitution, as it was included in the Ninth Schedule before the Kesavananda Bharati judgment. The Supreme Court upheld this reasoning, affirming that the 1954 Act's inclusion in the Ninth Schedule provided it immunity from constitutional challenges. 2. Repugnancy between the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: The appellants argued that the 1956 Act, being a parliamentary enactment, should prevail over the 1954 Act due to Article 254 of the Constitution. However, the Court noted that repugnancy under Article 254 arises only if both laws are under the Concurrent List. The 1954 Act pertains to Entry 18 of List II (State List), while the 1956 Act pertains to Entries 5 and 7 of List III (Concurrent List). Therefore, no repugnancy existed, and the 1954 Act, being a special law concerning agricultural land, prevailed. 3. Impact of the deletion of Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act, which exempted agricultural land from its provisions, was deleted in 2005. The appellants contended that this deletion should apply retrospectively. The Court held that the deletion of Section 4(2) could not affect rights that had already crystallized before its deletion. Succession to the property in question occurred in 1997, when Section 4(2) was still in force, thus the 1954 Act governed the succession. 4. Gender discrimination under Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954: The appellants argued that Section 50(a) discriminated against women, violating Articles 14 and 15. The Court reiterated that the 1954 Act's inclusion in the Ninth Schedule protected it from such challenges. Therefore, the argument of gender discrimination could not be entertained. 5. Applicability of the judgment in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors.: The appellants cited Vineeta Sharma to argue that amendments to the 1956 Act should apply retrospectively. The Court clarified that Vineeta Sharma dealt with the retrospective application of Section 6 of the 1956 Act, not the deletion of Section 4(2). Since the 1954 Act governed the succession in this case, amendments to the 1956 Act had no bearing. 6. Relevance of the judgment in Babu Ram vs. Santokh Singh and others: The appellants relied on Babu Ram, where the 1956 Act governed succession in Himachal Pradesh due to the absence of a state-specific law on agricultural land. The Court distinguished this case, noting that the 1954 Act specifically governed agricultural land in Delhi, making the 1956 Act inapplicable. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment. The 1954 Act, as a special law included in the Ninth Schedule, governed the succession of agricultural land, rendering the arguments based on the 1956 Act and gender discrimination invalid. The deletion of Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act did not retrospectively affect the rights that had already crystallized. The Court found no merit in the appellants' reliance on Vineeta Sharma and Babu Ram judgments.
|
