1962 (8) TMI 68 - SC - Indian Laws

Constitutional validity of s. 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act (Act 1 of 1913) questioned Held that - No doubt, the son and the other members of the family would not have been entitled to a present interest in the property alienated and consequently would not have a right to prevent the alienation (in which event, however, it is needless to add that a right to preempt wan wholly unnecessary as a means of preserving the property), but they would have a legitimate expectation of succeeding to the property-an expectation founded on and promoted by the consciousness of the community. If the social consciousness did engender such feelings, and taking into account the very strong sentimental value that is attached to the continued possession of family property in the Punjab, it could not be said that the restriction on the right of free alienation imposed by s. 15(1)(a) limited as it is to small class of near relations of the vendor is either unreasonable or not in the interest of the general public. The result is the appeal fails.

Issues Involved:
1. Abatement of appeal due to the death of an appellant.
2. Constitutional validity of Section 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913.
3. Impact of the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, on the right of preemption.
4. Reasonableness of the restriction imposed by Section 15(a) of the Punjab Preemption Act under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.
5. Retrospective application of amendments to the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Abatement of Appeal Due to the Death of an Appellant:
In Civil Appeal No. 214 of 1961, the appeal was dismissed as incompetent because it had abated on the death of the first appellant, Mehar Singh, without his legal representatives being brought on record. The Court held that the interest of the deceased was not distinct and separate from that of the other appellants. Therefore, the entire appeal must be held to be abated, as partial preemption is not permissible. The Court cited its earlier decision in Jhanda Singh v. Gurmukh Singh to support this position.

2. Constitutional Validity of Section 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913:
The primary issue in these appeals was the constitutional validity of Section 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913. The Court examined whether the right of preemption granted by the statute was a reasonable restriction on the right to hold and dispose of property under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The Court referred to its earlier judgment in Bhau Ram v. Baij Nath, which dealt with the impact of Article 19(1)(f) on the right of preemption. The Court upheld the validity of Section 15(a) of the Act, stating that the restriction imposed was reasonable and in the interest of the general public.

3. Impact of the Repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, on the Right of Preemption:
The Court considered the argument that the repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, had rendered the right of preemption under Section 15(a) of the Punjab Preemption Act unenforceable. The Court held that the repeal did not affect the continued operation of the Preemption Act. The definition of "agricultural land" and "member of an agricultural tribe" was to be read as if the definitions in the Alienation of Land Act had been bodily transposed into the Preemption Act. Therefore, the repeal did not render Section 15(a) inapplicable.

4. Reasonableness of the Restriction Imposed by Section 15(a) of the Punjab Preemption Act under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution:
The Court examined whether the restriction imposed by Section 15(a) was reasonable and in the interest of the general public. The Court referred to the objectives underlying the provision, such as preserving the integrity of the village community, avoiding fragmentation of holdings, and implementing the agnatic theory of the law of succession. The Court held that the restriction was reasonable and in the interest of the general public, particularly in the context of maintaining family property and the social consciousness of the community.

5. Retrospective Application of Amendments to the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913:
In Civil Appeal No. 510 of 1961, the Court considered the impact of the amendments to the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913, by Punjab Act 10 of 1960, which had retrospective effect. The Court held that Section 31 of the Amending Act, which stated that no court shall pass a decree inconsistent with the provisions of the Amending Act, was plainly retrospective. The Court applied the amended provisions and set aside the decree for preemption passed in favor of the respondent. The Court relied on the Federal Court's decision in Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri, which held that an appellate court must apply the law as it stands at the time of the appeal.

Conclusion:
- Civil Appeal No. 214 of 1961 was dismissed due to abatement.
- The constitutional validity of Section 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913, was upheld.
- The repeal of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, did not affect the enforceability of the right of preemption under Section 15(a).
- The restriction imposed by Section 15(a) was deemed reasonable and in the interest of the general public.
- The amendments to the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913, were applied retrospectively, and the decree for preemption in Civil Appeal No. 510 of 1961 was set aside.

← Previous Next →