An amendment to a statute will not be given retrospective operation unless the Legislature has expressed its intention to do so in clear terms.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal from the judgment of a learned Single judge raises the question of the construction of section 15 (2) (b) FIRST of the Punjab Preemption Act 1 of 1913 (hereafter called the Act) as amended.

( 2 ) FACTS relevant for our purposes, as discernible from the Judgment of the learned Single Judge are that one half share of land measuring 61 kanals and 12 marlas situated in Tikka Jaunta, Mauza Pundar was sold by one Smt. Jhokbu in favour on one Mehar Chand and others for a sum of Rs 900 by means of a sale-deed dated 6th September, 1963. Doomnu, claiming a superior right of pro-emption, instituted a suit tor pie-emption, out of which this appeal has arisen. The suit was resisted on various grounds and the pleas of the parties gave rise to four issues We are here concerned only with issue No. 1 which reads as under:- "whether the plaintiff is a step-son of the vendor and is a pint owner in the khata and as such has a superior right of pre-emption ?" The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was the son of Smt. Jhokhu s husband from a previous wife and was, therefore, not covered by section 15 (2) (b) FIRST of the Act. In regard to the claim as a co-sharer also, the plaintiff s plea was negatived with the observation that no right of pre-emption has been conferred on a co-sharer by the Act when the sale is by a female. It may be pointed out that before us, the learned counsel for the appellant has very frankly dropped his client s claim of pre-emption on the basis of the status of a co-sharer and we are only concerned with the construction of section 15 (2) (b) FIRST of the Act

( 3 ) DISSATISFIED plaintiff took the matter on appeal to the Court of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, who allowed the appeal and sent the case back for trial on the merits. This was done in view of the amendment of the Act by means of the Punjab Pre-emption (Amendment) Act 13 of 1964 which addd the words "husband of the" between the words "such" and "female in Paragraph First of clause (bl of sub section (2) of section 15 It may be recalled that the sale sought to ba pre-empted had taken place in September, 1963 and even the suit in the trial Court had been instituted sometime in October, 1963, long before the amendment.

( 4 ) THE defendants feeling aggrieved came to the High Court on second appeal and the learned Single Judge, holding the amendment of 1964 not to be retrospective in its operation, allowed the appeal and setting aside the judgement of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge, restored that of the Court of first instance. In the final result, the suit was dismissed.

( 5 ) IT is against this Judgment that the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred and the matter has been placed before us because a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has in Moti Ram v. Bakhwant singyh held the amendment in question to be retrospec. tive in its operation, the short question which we are called on to decide in this appeal, therefore, is whether the amendment of 164 is retrospective or merely prospective in its operation and was there it governs the present use.

( 6 ) SECTIONS 15 and 16 of the Act along with some other provisions thereof were amended by the Punjab Pre-emption (Amendment )Act 10 of 1960 pursuant to a continuous demand from the public to modify that Act because village life had been very considerably affected owing to the resettlement of displaced persons hailing from different places and also because it was felt that the law of pre-emption was hampering private transfers of property to landless persons who were harassed by pre-emption suits after they had settled on the lands reclaimed by them Restrictions on the sale of immovable property was also felt not only to be preventing developmental activities but was also considered to be inconsistent with the present democratic set up. Amendment was thus considered necessary in order to remove these serious detects. The