Judgment

AHMADI, J.:- Delay condoned. Special leave granted.

2. The constitutional validity of Section 15(1)(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 was challenged on the ground that it offended the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(f) in Ram Sarup v. Munshi, (1963) 3 SCR 858. A Constitution Bench of this Court upheld the validity holding that there was no infringement of Article -19(1)(f) of the Constitution. Thereafter, a host of writ petitions were filed in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the constitutional validity of Section 15 on the ground that it infringed Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. It may be mentioned that the mother State, the State of Punjab, had repealed the Act in 1973 but it continued to be in force in the State of Haryana which prior to 1966 was a part of the State of Punjab. Section 15 of the 1913 Act, as it originally stood, underwent substantial changes in 1960 and as amended read as under:

"15. Persons in whom right of pre-emption vests in respect of sales of agricultural land and village immovable property-

(1) The right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property shall vest-

(a) where the sale is by a sole owner-

First, in the son or daughter or sons son or daughters son of the vendor;

Secondly, in the brother or brothers son of the vendor;

Thirdly, in the fathers brother or fathers brothers son of the vendor;

Fourthly, in the tenant who holds under tenancy of the vendor the land or property sold or a part thereof;

(b) where the sale is of a share out of joint land or property and is not made by all the co-sharers jointly-

First, in the sons or daughters or sons or daughters sons of the vendor or vendors;

Secondly, in the brothers or brothers sons of the vendor or vendors;

Thirdly, in the fathers brother or fathers brothers sons of the vendor or vendors;

Fourthly, in the other co-sharers;

Fifthly, the tenants who hold under tenancy of the vendor or vendors the land or property sold or a part thereof;

(c) where the sale is of land or property owned jointly and is made by all the co-sharers jointly-

First, in the sons or daughters or sons sons or daughters sons of the vendors;

Secondly, in the brothers or brothers sons of the vendors;

Thirdly, in the fathers brothers or fathers brothers sons of the vendors;

Fourthly, in the tenants, who hold under tenancy of the vendors or any one of them the land or property sold or a part therof.

(2) Not with standing anything contained in sub-section (l):(a) where the sale is by a female of land or property to which she has succeeded through her father or brother or the sale in respect of such land or property is by the son or daughter of such female after inheritance, the right of pre-emption shall vest:

(i) if the sale is by such female, in her brother or brothers son;

(ii) if the sale is by the son or daughter of such female, in the mothers brothers or the mothers brothers sons of the vendor or vendors;

(b) where the sale is by a female of land or property to which she has succeeded through her husband, or through her son in case the son has inherited the land or property sold from his father, the right of pre-emption shall vest-

First, in the son or daughter of such husband of the female;

Secondly, in the husbands brother or husbands brothers son of such female."

This Court in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, (1986) 2 SCC 249, held that the right of pre-emption given to co-sharers as well as to a tenant can be justified as they constitute a class by themselves. This Court, therefore, upheld the constitutional validity of clause fourthly of Section 15(1)(a). Clauses fourthly and fifthly of Section 15(1)(b) and clause fourthly of Section 15(1)(c) as valid and not infringing Article 14 or 15 of the Constitution. This Court, however, did not find any justification for the classification contained in Section 15 which conferred a right of pre-emption on the kinsfolk. The right of pre-emption based on consanguinity