IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of State law as regards devolution of tenancy rights in respect of agricultural holdings, provisions of section 22 for succession of agricultural land would apply to devolution of tenancy rights also.

JUDGMENT :

UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of final judgment and order dated 07.05.2018 passed by the High Court (High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla) in Regular Second Appeal No.457 of 2002 and raises questions regarding scope and applicability of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and particularly, whether preferential right given to an heir of a Hindu under said Section 22 will be inapplicable if the property in question is an agricultural land.

3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal, in brief, are as under:

(a) Two brothers, namely, Santokh Singh (Original Plaintiff) and Nathu Ram, (Original Defendant No.1) sons of Lajpat S/o Rupa inherited, among others, certain agricultural lands after the death of their father. According to Santokh Singh an arrangement was arrived at, in terms of which the brothers were to be in separate enjoyment of certain specified pieces of land. Since Nathu Ram was not interested in continuing with said arrangement he gave a legal notice to Santokh Singh and later executed a registered sale deed on 19.08.1991 in respect of his interest in the lands in favour of one Babu Ram(Original Defendant No.2) S/o Kanshi Ram.

(b) Soon thereafter, Civil Suit No.194 of 1991 was filed by Santokh Singh in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Hamirpur praying for permanent prohibitory injunction and declaration. It was inter alia submitted that as a co-sharer, the Plaintiff had a preferential right to acquire the land which was sought to be transferred by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2. The suit was contested and the trial court by its judgment and order dated 04.05.1994 dismissed said suit.

(c) The Plaintiff, being aggrieved filed Civil Appeal No.86 of 1994 in the Court of District Judge, Hamirpur, which appeal was partly allowed. The Appellate Court placed reliance on the decisions reported in AIR 2000 Madras 516 and AIR 1988 Orissa 285 and held that the Plaintiff had a preferential right under Section 22 of the Act to acquire the suit land measuring 19 kanals half of the entire land entered in Khata No.25 min, Khatoni No.29 min, Khasra No.1119 measuring 38 kanals 1 marla situated in Tika Badehra, Tappa Badohag, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, (H.P.) on payment of sale consideration amounting to Rs.60,000/-. It also held the transfer of suit land by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 to be illegal, null and void and hit by the provisions of Section 22 of the Act. It directed Defendant No.2 to transfer the suit land in the name of the Plaintiff on receipt of sale consideration amounting to Rs.60,000/- within three months.

(d) Defendant No.2, being aggrieved, carried the matter further by filing Regular Second Appeal No.457 of 2002 in the High Court, which inter alia framed following substantial question of law:

“1. Whether Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act excludes interest in agricultural land of an intestate and the preferential right over “immovable property” as envisaged in the said provision is confined only to business and such immovable property which does not include the agricultural land?”

(e) Relying principally on the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in RSA No.258 of 2012 (Roshan Lal vs. Pritam Singh and others, R.S.A. No. 258 of 2012 decided on 1.3.2018), the High Court dismissed said Second Appeal, which decision is presently under challenge by Defendant No.2-Appellant.

4. The challenge before this Court is confined to the applicability of Section 22 of the Act to agricultural lands and the factual facets of the matter are not in dispute. We have heard Mr. Sanchar Anand, learned Advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, learned Advocate for heirs of Respondent No.1 – Plaintiff. With the assistance of the learned Counsel we have considered all the relevant decisions on