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.

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 :

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