1986 (2) TMI 338 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913.
2. Right of pre-emption based on consanguinity.
3. Classification of kinsfolk entitled to pre-emption.
4. Application of Articles 14, 15, and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Constitutional Validity of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913:
The constitutional validity of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, as applied in Haryana, was challenged. The Act was repealed in Punjab in 1973 but continued in Haryana. The Supreme Court previously upheld the Act's validity in Ram Sarup v. Munshi (1963) under Article 19(1)(f). The current challenge focuses on Articles 14 and 15.

2. Right of Pre-emption Based on Consanguinity:
The right of pre-emption based on consanguinity was described as "feudal," "piratical," and "tribal," and deemed inconsistent with the Constitutional scheme. The Supreme Court noted that since India is now a socialist republic, feudal rights must be abolished. The right to property, no longer a fundamental right post-Forty-Fourth Amendment, must be examined under Articles 14, 15, and 19(1)(d) and (g).

3. Classification of Kinsfolk Entitled to Pre-emption:
The classification of kinsfolk under Section 15 was scrutinized. The Court found the list of persons entitled to pre-emption to be inconsistent and self-contradictory. The exclusion of certain relatives, such as the father, mother, sister, and sister's son, while including others like the father's brother's son, was deemed illogical and unjustifiable. The classification was held to be unreasonable and not in tune with modern constitutional principles.

4. Application of Articles 14, 15, and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution:
The Court referenced previous judgments, including Bhau Ram v. B. Baijnath Singh, which invalidated pre-emption based on vicinage under Article 19(1)(f), and Ram Sarup v. Munshi, which upheld pre-emption for co-sharers but questioned its applicability based on consanguinity. The Court concluded that the right of pre-emption based on consanguinity could not be sustained under Articles 14 and 15, as it was inconsistent with the principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court declared clauses 'First,' 'Secondly,' and 'Thirdly' of Section 15(1)(a), (b), and (c), and the whole of Section 15(2) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, as ultra vires the Constitution. Pending suits and appeals will be disposed of in accordance with this declaration, while final decrees not appealed will remain binding inter-partes. No order was made regarding costs.