1. Challenge to the constitutionality of Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, regarding gender-based discrimination in the succession of agricultural land. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 947
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
HEMANT GUPTA, VIKRAM NATH, JJ.
Har Naraini Devi & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 22957 of 2017
Decided On : 20-09-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Any State enactment relating to Agricultural land tenures is a special law.
(2) All amendments are deemed to apply prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively or intended to have been done so by Legislature.
(1) Any State enactment relating to Agricultural land tenures is a special law.
(2) All amendments are deemed to apply prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively or intended to have been done so by Legislature.
Subject
Land Reforms - Succession to Agricultural Land
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 – Section 50(a) – Constitution of India – Article 254 – Vires of Section 50(a) – Question of repugnancy arises only if both Parliament and State legislature have made law with respect to any one of matters enumerated in Concurrent list (List III) – In present case two enactments of 1956 and 1954 are relatable to Entries in List III and List II respectively – Question of repugnancy would not come into existence unless it is first established that both enactments are under Concurrent list (List III) – Article 254 would have no application to present case at all – Any State enactment relating to Agricultural land tenures is a special law. (Paras 18, 19 and 20)
(B) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 4(2) – General Clauses Act, 1897 – Section 6 – Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 – Section 50 – Operation of amendment – All amendments are deemed to apply prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively or intended to have been done so by Legislature – By virtue of Section 6 of General Clauses Act, repeal of an enactment would not affect previous operation of such an enactment – On account of Sections 6(b) and 6(c) of General Clauses Act, omission of Section 4(2) of 1956 Act cannot affect previous operation of Section 4(2) – Effect of deletion can only be in respect of successions which opened on or after 09.09.2005 – Rights of descendants in terms of Section 50 became crystallized on account of said Section read with Section 4(2) of 1956 Act – Deletion of Section 4(2) cannot have retrospective effect – Besides, 1954 Act is a special law, dealing with fragmentation, ceiling, and devolution of tenancy rights over agricultural holdings only, whereas 1956 Act is a general law, providing for succession to a Hindu by religion – Existence or absence of Section 4(2) in 1956 Act would be immaterial. (Paras 23, 24, 25 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Present civil appeal by the original writ petitioners before 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 Delhi Land Reforms Act, 19541 unconstitutional being ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 254 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Findings of Court:
It is to be held that succession has opened prior to 09.09.2005, rights of descendants in terms of Section 50 became crystallized on account of the said Section read with Section 4(2) of 1956 Act. Therefore, the deletion of Section 4(2) cannot have retrospective effect.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- property law
- family law
- statutory interpretation
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Rakesh K. Mudgal, Adv. Mr. Kailash C. Mudgal, Adv. Mr. Dinesh K. Mudgal, Adv. Mr. Satbir Singh, Adv. Mr. Srilok Nath Rath, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Rakhi Madiyal, Adv. Mr. Rajan Parmar, Adv. Mr. Vinayaka S. Pandit, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Rakesh K. Mudgal, Adv. Mr. Kailash C. Mudgal, Adv. Mr. Dinesh K. Mudgal, Adv. Mr. Satbir Singh, Adv. Mr. Srilok Nath Rath, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Adv. Mr. Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Prakash, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Sabharwal, Adv. Ms. Rakhi Madiyal, Adv. Mr. Rajan Parmar, Adv. Mr. Vinayaka S. Pandit, Adv. Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Constitutionality of Section 50(a) under Articles 14 and 15 — Repugnancy with Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — Impact of the deletion of Section 4(2) of 1956 Act. (Para 6 , 10 , 11 )
3. 1954 Act is protected by Ninth Schedule and Article 31B — No repugnancy as laws refer to different lists — State agricultural laws are special laws. (Para 7 , 13 , 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 26 )
4. Repugnancy under Article 254 arises only if both the Parliamentary and State laws are referable to the Concurrent List (List III). (Para 18 , 19 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 30 )
6. When does the question of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution arise between a Parliamentary law and a State law?
Repugnancy under Article 254 arises only if both the Parliamentary (or existing law) and the State law are referable to the Concurrent List (List III) in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. (Para 18 , 19 )
7. Are legislations included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution protected from constitutional challenges?
Legislations included in the Ninth Schedule before the judgment in Kesavananda Bharati (24.04.1973) stand protected under Article 31B of the Constitution. (Para 7 , 13 , 14 )
8. Does the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, prevail over state enactments regarding the succession of agricultural land?
No, state enactments relating to agricultural land tenures are considered special laws, whereas the Hindu Succession Act is a general law; therefore, the special state law governs succession. (Para 20 , 26 )
9. Does the deletion of Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, affect inheritance rights that crystallized before the amendment?
No, amendments are generally prospective. Under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the omission of a provision cannot affect the previous operation of that enactment or rights already acquired. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
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, 1954,1[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 :
| Shri Mukhtiar Singh (Died On 06.06.1997) | ||||||
| Son (1) Shri Mahinder Singh (Died in 1975) | Son (2) Shri Jagdish (Died in 1976) | Son (3) Ishwar (Died in 1985) | ||||
| 1. Kuldeep (Son) | 2. Kulbeer (Son) | Widow (Petitioner No.1) | Daughter (Petitioner No.2) | Son Jaidev (Respondent No.3) | Son Amit (Respondent No.4) | |
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 relates to the agricultural property held by Mukhtiar Singh. He had three sons viz Mahinder Singh, Jagdish Singh and Ishwar Singh. All of them pre-deceased him. Mukhtiar Singh died on 06.06.1997 and his inheritance relating to the branch of Ishwar Singh was succeeded by his grandsons (sons of Ishwar Singh i.e. Jaidev and Amit - respondent nos. 3 and 4) under Section 50(a) of the 1954 Act. Revenue records were corrected accordingly.
3. It would be appropriate to reproduce Section 50 of the 1954 Act :
“50. General order of succession from males. - Subject to the provisions of Section 48 and 52, when a Bhumidhar or Asami being a male dies, his interest in his holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of the succession given below:
(a) Male lineal descendants in the male line of the descent:
Provided that no member of this class shall inherit if any male descendant between him and the deceased is alive:
Provided further that the son or sons of a predeceased on how low so ever shall inherit the share which would have devolved upon the deceased if he had been then alive:
(b) Widow
(c) Father
(d) Mother, being a widow;
(e) Step mother, being a widow;
(f) Father’s father
(g) Father’s mother, being a widow;
(h) Widow of a male lineal descendant in the male line of descent;
(i) Brother, being the son of same father as the deceased;
(j) Unmarried sister;
(k) Brother’s son, the brother having been a son of the same father as the deceased;
(l) Father’s father’s son;
(m) Brother’s son’s son;
(n) Father’s father’s son’s son;
(o) Daughter’s son.”
4. The appellants by way of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenged the validity of Section 50(a) of the 1954 Act as they were denied any rights in the inheritance along with respondent Nos.3 and 4.
5. The relief as claimed before the High Court in the writ petition is reproduced below :
“(a) To declare clause (a) of S.50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 unconstitutional being ultravires Articles 14, 15, 254 and 21 of the Constitution of India;
(b) To declare the Petitioners “bhumidhar” having equal rights of succession at par with the respondent Nos. 3-4 in the property inherited by them detailed in Annexure P-3;
(c) To grant any other relief in the interest of justice.;
(d) To grant cost of litigation.”
6. The challenge before the High 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, 1956,2[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 In
