The provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, including Section 22, are applicable to agricultural lands.

Sanjay Karol, J.

The difference of opinion between two learned Judges of this Court, sitting singly in separate proceedings, led the matter to be placed before us for answering the following question:

“Whether the provisions of Hindu Succession Act apply to agricultural lands?”

2. In Baldev Parkash & others vs. Dhian Singh & others, Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 599, the view taken is that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Succession Act’), are not applicable to agricultural land, whereas, vide judgment dated 14th October, 2015, rendered in this very case (RSA No. 258 of 2012), by relying upon the decision of the apex Court in Vaijanath & others vs. Guramma & another, (1999) 1 SCC 292, a contrary view stands taken.

3. The question at best can be answered by examining the Constitutional provisions qua competence of the Central Government to enact the laws, pertaining to “succession” of agricultural land. In fact, legislative competence of the Central Government is the sole question, which arises for consideration in the present appeal.

4. The sale deed dated 14.3.2005 executed by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 is directly in attack by the plaintiff, claiming preferential rights by virtue of Section 22 of the Succession Act. Plaintiff filed a suit challenging the sale deed for the reason that he had a preferential right to acquire the interest transferred in terms of the instrument of sale. The suit came to be decreed, but in the appeal (RSA), defendant No. 1 by taking recourse to the decision already rendered by the learned Single Judge in Baldev Parkash (supra), pressed for setting aside the decree on the ground that the Succession Act, being a Central Legislation, would not and does not apply to agricultural land which falls purely within the domain of the State. Unable to persuade himself to agree with the view taken in Baldev Parkash (supra), after relying upon the decision rendered by the apex Court in Vaijanath (supra), the learned Single Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench by framing the aforesaid question, which we are called upon to answer.

5. We need not to go into the factual matrix of the case, for the issue is purely legal. The moot point is as to whether succession is a transfer or alienation and would include the expression “transfer of property” or not and as to whether succession with respect to agricultural land falls within item No. 5 of List III of the Constitution or not.

6. We now take note of relevant provisions of the Constitution of India (hereinafter referred to as the Constitution).

7. Part XI, Chapter I of the Constitution deals with the legislative relations i.e. distribution of legislative powers. By virtue of Article 245, territorial jurisdiction of the legislative powers of the Parliament and the State Legislatures is delimited and Article 246 distributes the legislative powers subject wise between the Parliament and State Legislatures. Of course, exceptions are carved out under Articles 247, 249, 250, 252 and 253. Articles 245, 246 and 254 read as under:-

“245. Extent of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States. – (1) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Parliament may make laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India, and the Legislature of a State may make law for the whole or any part of the State. (2) No law made by Parliament shall be deemed to be invalid on the ground that it would have extra-territorial operation.

246. Subject-matter of laws made by Parliament and by the Legislatures of States – (1) Notwithstanding anything in Clauses (2) and (3), Parliament has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List I in the Seventh Schedule (in this Constitution referred to as the "Union List").

(2) Notwithstanding anything in Clause (3), Parliament, a