9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Appellant : Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR, Ms. Reena Rao, Adv., Mr. Srilok Nath Rath, adv. For the Respondent : Mr. K.M. Natraj, Ld. ASG, Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv., Mr. Rajan Chaurasia, Adv., Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv., Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv., Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv., Ms. Indira Shankar, Adv., Ms. Chingappa Nahul, Adv., Mr. Anuj Udupa, Adv., Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR, Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR. JUDGMENT VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. This civil appeal by the original writ petitioners before the High Court, assails the correctness of the judgment and order dated 11.09.2009 passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2887 of 2008 whereby challenge was made to declare Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 [Hereinafter referred to as 1954 Act ] unconstitutional being ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 254 and 21 of the Constitution of India. FACTS: 2. Genealogy (pedigree) relevant for the case is as follows: From the above pedigree it is clear that the appellants are the widow and daughter of Ishwar Singh whereas the contesting respondent nos. 3 and 4 are the sons of Ishwar Singh. The dispute relate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court was on the grounds of: (i) violation of Article 14; (ii) women being discriminated despite world over the rights of women were being empowered; (iii) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Hereinafter referred to as the 1956 Act ] would prevail over the 1954 Act. 7. Division Bench of the High Court considered the various submissions advanced and placing reliance on the fact that 1954 Act had been placed in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution much prior to the judgment in the case of Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala [1973 (4) SCC 225] , and also in view of Article 31(B) of the Constitution of India extending immunity to such legislation, dismissed the writ petition by the impugned judgment dated 11.09.2009. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred. 8. Initially, respondent Nos.3 and 4 had put in appearance. It is thereafter an I.A. was filed by the Advocate on Record to seek discharge from the case. Such I.A. was allowed on 05.05.2022. Shri Anand Yadav, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. 9. We may briefly note the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned Amicus. Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 Act was challenged on the ground that it ultra vires Articles 13, 14, 19, 21 and 254 of the Constitution. 13. In support of the submissions, the appellants who were the petitioners before the High Court relied upon the judgments in the cases of (i) Kesavananda Bharati (ii) Waman Rao and Ors. vs. Union of India [1981 2 SCC 362] and (iii) I.R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Ors. [(2007) 2 SCC 1] The High Court dealt with the judgments in detail and its ultimate analysis was that none of the judgments relied upon were of any help to the appellants. The consistent stand of this Court was that all the legislations included in the Ninth Schedule to the Constitution before the Judgment in the case of Kesavananda Bharati that is 24.04.1973, would stand protected under Article 31B of the Constitution and, therefore, the challenge to the validity of provisions of the 1954 Act must fail. 14. The reasoning given by the High Court, as stated above, is the correct interpretation of the judgments of the Court referred to above and as such does not warrant any interference. We may also make a note that, before us learned counsel for the appellants has neither raised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. The said Entries are reproduced below: List II State List Entry 18: Land, that is to say, right in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant, and the collection of rents; transfer and alienation of agricultural land; land improvement and agricultural loans; colonization. List III Concurrent List Entry 5: Marriage and divorce; infants and minors; adoption; wills, intestacy and succession; joint family and partition; all matters in respect of which parties in judicial proceedings were immediately before the commencement of this Constitution subject to their personal law. xxx xxx xxx Entry 7: Contracts, including partnership, agency, contracts of carriage, and other special forms of contracts, but not including contracts relating to agricultural land. 19. 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 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u 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. 23. 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. Reference may be had to the following decisions: [L.R. Brothers Indo Flora Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [(2020) SCC Online SC 705, para 27] ; Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra [(1994) 4 SCC 602 para 26] ; Union of India v. Zora Singh [ (1992)1 SCC 673, para 12 ] In the present case there is no such intenti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... override, overrule, quash, recall, render invalid, rescind, rescindere, retract, reverse, revoke, set aside, vacate, void, withdraw. 13. On a conjoint reading of the three expressions delete , omit , and repeal , it becomes clear that delete and omit are used interchangeably, so that when the expression repeal refers to delete it would necessarily take within its ken an omission as well. This being the case, we do not find any substance in the argument that a repeal amounts to an obliteration from the very beginning, whereas an omission is only in futuro. If the expression delete would amount to a repeal , which the appellant s counsel does not deny, it is clear that a conjoint reading of Halsbury s Laws of England and the Legal Thesaurus cited hereinabove both lead to the same result, namely, that an omission being tantamount to a deletion is a form of repeal. 25. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat 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. Paragraphs 21 and 22 which are relevant are reproduced hereunder: 21. In the present case, it is nobody s case that the matter relating to succession to an interest in agricultural lands is in any way dealt with by any State legislation operating in the State of Himachal Pradesh or that such legislation must prevail in accordance with the principles under Article 254 of the Constitution of India. The field is occupied only by Section 22 of the Act insofar as the State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned. The High Court was, therefore, absolutely right in holding that Section 22 of the Act would operate in respect of succession to agricultural lands in the State. 22. Though, succession to an a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
