tition Civil No 13227 of 1984 etc
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Pankaj Kalra for the Petitioner in WP No 13227 of 1984
Ms Harbans Lal VC Mahajan Mahabir Singh Avadh Behari Rohtagi SS Banerjee MS Gujaral KG Bhagat Hardev Singh Yogeshwar Prasad Anil Dev Singh Govind Das and KP Bhandari Ms SM Ashri GK Bansal JS Malhotra Ali Ahmed Jayashree Ahmed CK Bansal Narendra Singh Malik DK Garg BP Maheshwari Vidya Sagar Vashist SN Agarwal SK Jain SK Dhingra ML Verma SK Bagga Ranbir Singh Yadav HM Singh Kirpal Singh Amlan Ghosh M Qamaruddin Mrs M Qamaruddin RK Kapur MM Kashyap BR Kapur Anil Katyal OP Sharma Amis Ahmad Khan RC Kapoor Mrs Laxmi Arvind Suresh C Gupta SS Ray Anil Bhatnagar 404 Praveen Kumar Ashok Mathur MK Dua PN Puri Gyan Singh IS Goel SN Singh CV Subba Rao VM Issar Khaitan  Co Brij Bhushan Sharma P Narasimhan Ms Madhu Mool Chandani KK Jain Pramod Dayal AD Sangar AK Ganguli A Mariaputam Nafiz Ahmad Siddiqui MC Dhingra Avtar Singh Sonal Shreepal Singh SR Srivastava Ashok K Srivastava Balmukand Goel SK Bhulakia RC Bhatia RK Agnihotri Dr Meera Aggarwal RC Misra MS Dhillon SK Dholakia P Narasimhan RK Agarwal T Sridharan SC Patel NMPopli Brij Bhushan and Kailash Mehta for the appearing parties
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY J
The archaic right of pre emption based on consanguinity is in question in the several thousand writ petitions under article 32 of the Constitution
The constitutional validity of sec
15 of the Punjab Pre emption Act 1913 was applicable in the State of Haryana which incorporates this right is challanged
The State of origin of the Punjab Pre emption Act the State of Punjab has repealed the Act in 1973
The Act however continues to be in force in the State of Haryana which originally formed part of the State of Punjab
The vires of sec151a of the Act was questioned in this Court in Ram Sarup vs Munshi and Ors  on the ground that it offended the fundamental right guaranteed by sec191f of the Constitution
It was ruled by a Constitution Bench that there was no infringement of Art191f and that the provision was valid
The validity of sec15 is now impugned primarily on the ground that it offends articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution
The right of pre emption based on consanguinity has been variously described by learned judges as feudal  piratical  tribal  weak  easily defeated  etc
Ralwa vs Vaaakha Singh AIR 1983 Punjab  Haryana 480 FB at 490 and Bishan Singh vs Khazan Singh 1959 SCR 878
Fusing as it does the Lies of blood and soil it cannot be doubted that the right is antiquated and feudal in origin and in character
The right is very much like another right of feudal origin and character which subsisted here and there in India until recently particularly amongst the princely families namely the right of succession by primogeniture
It 405 is a well known characteristic of feudalism that the control of the most important productive resource land should continue in the hands of the same social and family group
The right of pre emption based on consanguinity is a consequence flowing out of this characteristic
It is entirely inconsistent with our Constitutional scheme
Since the Forty Second Amendment India is a socialist republic in which feudalism can obviously have no place and must go
Our Constitution now proclaims India as a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic in which the right to equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws are guaranteed and all citizens are assured that the State shall not discriminate on grounds only of religion race caste sex place of birth or any of them
The citizens are also assured of the right to move freely through out the territory of India to reside or settle in any part of the territory of India and to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation trade or business
The State is further enjoined to direct its policy towards securing that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment
The right to property has also now ceased to be a fundamental right since the Forty Fourth Amendment
The question now is whether this adjunct of the right to property perhaps perfectly reasonable in a feudal society can be constitutionally sustained in a society dedicated to socialistic principles
The question has to be examined with reference to articles 14 15 and 191d and g in the background of the Preamble to the Constitution and Art39c of the Directive Principles of State Policy
We think that the question has to be primarily answered with reference to Art 14
The Punjab Pre emption Act 1913 repealed the Punjab Pre emption Act of 1905 and sec12 of the 1905 Act which corresponded to sec15 of the 1913 Act was as follows 12
Subject to the provisions of section 11 the right of pre emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property shall vest a in the case of the sale of such land or property by a sole owner or occupancy tenant or when such land or property is held jointly by the co sharers 406 in the persons who but for such sale would be entitled to inherit the property in the event of his or their decease in order of succession b in the case of a sale of share of such land or property held jointly first in the lineal descendants of the vendor in the male line in order of succession secondly in the co shares if any who are agnates in order of succession thirdly in the persons described in sub clause a of this sub section and not hereinbefore provided for fourthly in the co sharers i jointly ii severally c As section 15c Act of 1913 with the addition of words i jointly ii severally in secondly thirdly and fourthly
Explanation 1
In the case of sale of a right of occupancy clauses a b and c of this sub section with the exception of sub clause fourthly of clause c shall be applicable
Explanation 2
In the case of a sale by a female of property to which she has succeeded through her husband son brother or father the word agnates  in this section shall mean the agnates of the person through whom she has so succeeded
 Section 15 of the Punjab Pre emption Act 1913 as it originally stood was as follows 15
Subject to the provisions of section 14 the right of pre emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property shall vest a where the sale is by a sole owner or occupancy tenant or in the case of land or property jointly 407 owned or held is by all the co sharers jointly in the persons in order of succession who but for such sale would be entitled on the death of the vendor or vendors to inherit the land or property sold b where the sale is of a share out of joint land or property and is not made by all the co sharers jointly firstly in the lineal decendants of the vendor in order of succession secondly in the co sharers if any who are agnates in order of succession thirdly in the persons not included under firstly or secondly above in order of succession who but for such sale would be entitled on the death of the vendor to inherit the land or property sold fourthly in the co sharers c If no person having a right of pre emption under clause a or clause b seeks to exercise it firstly when the sale affects the superior or inferior proprietary right and the superior right is sold in the inferior proprietors and when the inferior proprietors and when the inferior right is sale in the superior proprietors secondly in the owners of the patti or other sub division of the estate within the limits of which such land or property is situate thirdly in the owners of the estate fourthly in the case of a sale of the proprietary right in such land or property in the tenants if any having rights of occupancy in such land or property 408 fifthly in any tenant having a right of occupancy in any agricultural land in the estate within the limits of which the land or property is situated
Explanation In the case of sale by a female of land or property to which she has succeeded on a life tenure through her husband son brother or father the word agnates  in this section shall mean the agnates of the person through whom she has so succeeded
In 1960 there were substantial amendments to the Punjab Pre emption Act and after amendment sec15 was as follows 15
Persons in whom right of pre emption vests in respect of sales of agricultural land and village immovable property 1 The right of pre emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property shall vest a where the sale is by a sole owner First in the son or daughter or son s son or daughter s son of the vendor Secondly in the brother or brother s son of the vendor Thirdly in the father s brother or father s brother s son of the vendor Forthly in the tenant who holds under tenancy of the vendor the land or property sold or a part thereof b where the sale is of a share out of joint land or property and is not made by all the co shares jointly First in the sons or daughters or sons  son or daughters  sons of the vendor or vendors Secondly in the brothers or brother s sons of the vendor or vendors 409 Thirdly in the father s brother or father s sons of the vendor or vendors Fourthly in the other co sharers Fifthly in the tenants who hold under tenancy of the vendor or vendors the land or property sold or a part thereof c where the sale is of land or property owned jointly and is made by all the co sharers jointly First in the sons or daughters or sons  sons or daughter s sons of the vendors Secondly in the brothers or brother s sons of the vendors Thirdly in the Father s or brother s or father s brother s sons of the vendors Fourthly in the tenants who hold under tenancy of the vendors or any one of them the land or property sold or a part thereof
2 Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection1  a where the sale is by a female of land or property to which she has succeeded through her father or brother or the sale in respect of such land or property is by the son or daughter of such female after inheritance the right of pre emption shall vest i if the sale is by such female in her brother or brother s son ii if the sale is by the son or daughter of such female in the mother s brothers or the mother s brother s sons of the vendor or vendors b where the sale is by a female of land or 410 property to which she has succeeded through her husband or through her son in case the son has inherited the land or property sold from his father the right of pre emption shall vest FIRST in the son or daughter of such husband of the female SECONDLY in the husband s brother or husband s brother s son of such female
 Agricultural land has been defined in the Act to mean land as defined in the Punjab Alienation of Land Act not including the rights of a mortgagee whether usufructuary or not in such land Member of an agricultural tribe  and Group of agricultural tribes  are to have the same meanings assigned to them respectively under the Punjab Alienation of Land Act
The Punjab Alienation of Land Act has been repealed but the definitions continue to have force for the purposes of the Punjab Pre emption Act
Section 4 of the Punjab Preemption Act states what the right of Pre emption is
It says  4
Right of pre emption application of The right of pre emption shall mean the right of a person to acquire agricultural land or village immovable property or urban immovable property in preference to other persons and it arises in respect of such land only in the case of sales and in respect of such property only in the case of sales or of foreclosures of the right to redeem such property
Nothing in this section shall prevent a Court from holding that an alienation purporting to be other than a sale is in effect a sale
 t Section 5b prescribes that there shall be no right of pre emption in respect of the sale of agricultural land being waste land reclaimed by the vendee
Section 6 provides that a right of pre emption shall exist in respect of village immovable property and subject to the provisions of section 5b in respect of agricultural land but only subject to all the provisions and limitations contained in the Act
Section 7 refers to the right of pre emption in respect of urban immovable property
Section 8 enables the Government to 411 declare by a notification that there shall be no right of pre emption in any local area or with respect to any land or property or class of land or property or with respect to any sale or class of sales
Section 10 prevents a party to a sale along with other joint owners from claiming a right to pre emption
In respect of land sold by a member of an agricultural tribe section 14 provides that no person who is not a member of the same agricultural tribe as the vendor shall have a right of pre emption
We have already extracted section 15
Section 16 refers to the vesting of the right of pre emption in the case of an urban immovable property Section 17 prescribes how the right of pre emption may be exercised where several persons are entitled to such right
Other provisions deal with the procedure to be followed for the exercise of the right of pre emption
Now to the question at issue and first a word about interpretation
Whether it is the Constitution that is expounded or the constitutional validity of a statute that is considered a cardinal rule is to look to the Preamble to the Constitution as the guiding light and to the Directive Principles of State Policy as the Book of Interpretation
me Preamble embodies and expresses the hopes and aspirations of the people
The Directive Principles set out proximate goals
When we go about the task of examining statutes against the Constitution it is through these glasses that we must look distant vision  or near vision 
The Constitution being sui generis where Constitutional issues are under consideration narrow interpretative rules which may have relevance when legislative enactments are interpreted may be misplaced
Originally the Preamble to the Constitution proclaimed the resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Democratic Republic  and set forth Justice Liberty Equality and Fraternity  the very rights mentioned in the French Declarations of the Rights of Man as our hopes and aspirations
That was in 1950 when we had just emerged from the colonial feudal rule
Time passed
The people s hopes and aspirations grew
In 1977 the 42nd amendment proclaimed India as a Socialist Republic
The word socialist  was introduced into the Preamble to the Constitution
The implication of the introduction of the word socialist  which has now become the centre of the hopes and aspirations of the people a beacon to guide and inspire all that is enshrined in the 412 articles of the Constitution  is clearly to set up a vibrant throbbing socialist welfare society in the place of a Feudal exploited society
Whatever article of the Constitution it is that we seek to interpret whatever statute it is whose constitutional validity is sought to be questioned we must strive to give such an interpretation as will promote the march and progress towards a Socialistic Democratic State
For example when we consider the question whether a statute offends Article 14 of the Constitution we must also consider whether a classification that the legislature may have made is consistent with the socialist goals set out in the Preamble and the Directive Principles enumerated in Part IV of the Constitution
A classification which is not in tune with the Constitution is per se unreasonable and cannot be permitted
With these general ennunciations we may now examine the questions raised in these writ petitions
We may first refer to two decisions of this court where the court had occasion to consider the question of the constitutional validity of the right of pre emption incorporated in the Rewa State Pre emption Act and the Punjab Pre emption Act in relation to article 191f of the Constitution
In Bhau Ram vs B Baijnath Singh 1962 Suppl 3 SCR 724 a Constitution Bench of this court had occasion to consider the question whether a provision of the Rewa State Pre emption Act which gave a right of pre emption based on vicinage and the provisions of the Punjab Pre emption Act 1913 which gave a right of pre emption to co sharers offended Art191f of the Constitution
It was held that a right of pre emption by vicinage offended Art191f and that a right of pre emption in favour of co sharers did not
While dealing with the provision of the Rewa Act relating to pre emption by vicinage the Constitution Bench not only held that the right to pre emption by vicinage offended article 191f but also appeared to indicate that the right might also offend the fundamental right guaranteed by Art15
Wanchoo J speaking for the court said  Before the Constitution came into force the statutes if they were passed by competent authority could not be challenged but we have now to judge the reason ableness of these statutes in 413 the light of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens of this country by the Constitution
In a society where certain classes were privileged and preferred to live In groups and there were discriminations on grounds of religion race and caste there may have been some utility in allowing persons to prevent a stranger from acquiring property in an area which had been populated by a particular fraternity of class of people and in those times a right of pre emption which would oust a stranger from the neighbourhood may have been tolerable or reasonable
But the constitution now prohibits discrimination against any citizen on grounds only of religion race caste sex place of birth or any of them under article 15 and guarantees a right to every citizen to acquire hold and dispose of property subject only to restrictions which may be reasonable and in the interests of the general public
Though therefore the ostensible reason for pre emption may be vicinage the real reason behind the law was to prevent a stranger from acquiring property in any area which had been populated by a particular fraternity or class of people
In effect therefore the law of pre emption based on vicinage was really meant to prevent strangers ie people belonging to different religion race or caste from acquiring property
Such division of society now into groups and exclusion of strangers from any locality cannot be considered reasonable and the main reason therefore which sustained the law of pre emption based on vicinage in previous times can have no force now and the law must be held to impose an unreasonable restriction on the right to acquire hold and dispose of property as now guranteed under Art191f for it is impossible to see such restrictions as reasonable and in the interests of the general public in the state of society in the present day
 Considering the question relating to the right of pre emption given to co sharers in the Punjab Pre emption Act 1913 the court observed  414 The question as to the constitutionality of a law of pre emption in favour of a co sharer has been considered by a number of High Courts and the constitutionality has been uniformly upheld
We have no doubt that a law giving such a right imposes a reasonable restriction which is in the interest of the general public
If an outsider is introduced is a co sharer in a property it will make common management extremely difficult and destroy the benefits of ownership in common
The result of the law of pre emption in favour of a co sharer is that if sales take place the property may eventually come into the hands of one co sharer as full owner and that would naturally be a great advantage the advantage is all the greater in the case of a residential house and s16 is concerned with urban property for the introduction of an outsider in a residential house would lead to all kinds of complications
The advantages arising from such a law of pre emption are clear and in our opinion outweight the disadvantages which the vendor may suffer on account of his inability to sell the property to whomsoever he pleases
The vendee also cannot be said to suffer much by such a law because he is merely deprived of the right of owning an undivided share of the property
On the whole it seems to us that a right of pre emption based on co sharership is a reasonable restriction on the right to acquire hold and dispose of property and is in the interests of the general public
In Bhau Ram s case there was also a question relating to the right of pre emption granted by s174 of the Berar Land Revenue Code in favour of occupants in a survey number in respect of transfers of interests in that survey number
Referring to the provisions of the Berar Land Revenue Code it was held that the law of pre emption in s174 applied to those who were co sharers or akin to co sharers and was not an unreasonable restriction on the right guaranteed by Art191f
The question whether section 151a of the Punjab 415 Pre emption Act 1913 as amended in 1960 which granted a right of pre emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property where the sale was by a sole owner to the son or daughter or son s son or daughter s son of the vendor offended the fundamental right guaranteed by Art191f of the Constitution was considered by a Constitution Bench of the court in Ram Sarup vs Munshi and Ora
supra
Before the Constitution Bench the following five grounds were relied upon to vindicate the reasonableness of sections 15 and 16 of the Act  i to preserve the integrity of the village and the village community ii to avoid fragmentation of holdings iii to implement the agnatic theory of the law of succession iv to reduce the chances of litigation and friction and to promote public order and domestic confort and v to promote private and public decency and convenience
It was held that the ground of promotion of public order and domestic comfort and private and public decency and convenience had relevance to urban immovable property which was dealt with in s16 and not to agricultural property which was dealt with in s15
It also held that the ground of avoidance of chances of litigation had no relevance and further that the ground of avoidance of fragmentation of holdings was of no assistance to sustain the claim of a son to pre empt in the event of a sale by a sole owner father as that criterion was of real relevance in the case of the right of pre emption given to co sharers and the like
In regard to the ground relating to preservation of the integrity of the village and the village community the court held that it was not a final and conclusive answer to the argument against the reasonableness of the provision
me court however upheld sl51a as a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public on the basis of the third ground which was that 416 the next in succession should have the chance of retaining the property in the family
It was observed that the son and other members of the family though not entitled to a present interest in the property or a right to prevent the alienation would nevertheless have a legitimate expectation founded on and promoted by the consciousness of the community
It was observed that if the social consciousness did engender such feelings and taking into account the very strong sentimental value that was attached to the continued possession of family property in the Punjab it could not be said that the restriction on the right of free alienation imposed by sl51a limited as it was to a small class of near relations of the vendor was either unreasonable or not in the interest of the general public
In Sant Ram vs Labh Singh AIR 1965 SC 314 it was held that the reasons given by the court in Bhau Ram s case tc invalidate the right of pre emption based on vicinage held good to invalidate such a custom also
In the first case Bhau Ram s case the right of preemption given to co sharers was held to be a reasonable restriction on the right to held acquire or dispose of property conferred by article 191f of the Constitution
What has been said there to uphold the right of pre emption granted to a co sharer as a reasonable restriction on the right to property applies with the same force to justify the classification of co sharers as a class by themselves for the purpose of vesting in them the right of pre emption
We do not think that it is necessary to re state what has been said in that case
We endorse the views expressed therein
The right of pre emption vested in a tenant can also be easily sustained
There can be no denying that the movement of all land reform legislations has been towards enabling the tiller of the soil to obtain proprietory right in the soil so that he may not be disturbed from possession of the land and deprived of his livelihood by a superior proprietor
The right of pre emption in favour of a tenant granted by the Act is only another instance of a legislation aimed at protecting the tenant
There can be no doubt that tenants form a distinct class by themselves and the right of pre emption granted in their favour is reasonable and in the public interest
We are therefore of the view that clause fourthly  of s151a clauses fourthly 417 and fifthly  of s151b and clause fourthly  of section 151 c are valid and do not infringe either article 14 or 15 of the Constitution
We now come to the primary question whether the right of pre emption based on consanguinity and contained in the remaining clauses of sec151a b and c and sec
152a and b can be sustained
Earlier we have briefly indicated the character of the right of pre emption based on consaguinity
In the counter affidavit the classification in favour of the persons mentioned in 915 is sought to be justified in the following manner The classifications has been made on reasonable basis in the interests of the public  i to preserve integrity of village community ii to avoid fragmentation of holdings iii to implement the agnatic theory of succession iv to promote public and private decency v to facilitate tenants to acquire ownership rights vi to reduce litigation consequent to introduction of an outsider on family property or jointly owned property
These were the very factors which were put forward to support the plea in Ram Sarup s case that s151a was a reasonable restriction on the right to hold acquire or dispose of property conferred by article 191f of the Constitution
As pointed out in Ram Sarup s case avoidance of fragmentation of holdings promotion of private and public decency and reduction of litigation do not seem to have any relevance to the right of pre emption vested in the kinsfolk of the vendor
The real question is whether a classification in favour of the kinsfolk of the vendor can be considered reasonable so as to justify a right of pre emption in their 418 favour for the purpose of preserving the integrity of the village community or implementing the agnatic theory of succession or preserving the unity and integrity of the family We do not think that the classification can be considered reasonable in the circumstances prevailing today whatever Justification there might have been for the classification in 1960 when the legislature amended s15 of the Punjab Pre emption Act
Apart from the courts characterising the right as archaic  feudal  piratical  outmoded  and so on the Punjab legislature recognised the incongruity of the right in modern times and repealed it in 1972
We find it difficult to uphold the classification on the basis of unity and integrity of either the village community or the family or on the basis of the agnatic theory of succession which is again in a way connected with the integrity of the family
It is well known and we may take judicial notice of it that not only has there been a green and a white revolution in Haryana this State is also in the process of an industrial revolution
Industries have sprung up through out the State and the population has been in a State of constant flux and movement
The traditional integrity of the village and the family have now become old wives  tales
Tribal loyalities have disappeared and family ties have weakened
Such is the effect of the march of history and the consequence of industrialisation mechianisation of agriculture development of marketing and trade allurement of professions and office employment opportunity elsewhere and so on
The processes of history cannot be reversed and we cannot hark back to the traditional rural family oriented society
Quite apart from the break up of the integrity of village life and family life it is to be noticed that the property in respect of which the right of pre emption is to be exercised is property of which the vendor or the vendors as the case may be have rights of full ownership and their kinsfolk have no present right whatsoever
The right of pre emption is not to be confused with the right to question the alienation of ancestral immovable property which the male lineal descendants of the vendor have under the Punjab Custom Power to Contest Act 1920
The right of pre emption is now entirely a statutory right and dissociated from custom or personal law
A scrutiny of the list of persons in whose favour the right of pre emption is vested under s15 reveals certain 419 glaring facts which appear to detract from the theory of preservation of the integrity of the family and the theory of agnatic right of succession
First we notice that neither the father nor the mother figures in the list though the father s brother does
me son s daughter and the daughter s brother does
The son s daughter and the daughter s daughter do not appear though the son s son and daughter s son do
The sister and the sister s son are excluded though the brother and the brother s son are included
Thus relatives of the same degree are excluded either because they are women or because they are related through women
It is not as if women and those related through women are altogether excluded because the daughter and daughter s son are included
If the daughter is to be treated on a par with the son and the daughter s son is treated on a par with the son s son it does not appear logical why the father s son brother should be included and not the father s daughter sister
These are but a few of the intrinsic contradictions that appear in the list of relatives mentioned in s15 as entitled to the right of pre emption
It is ununderstandable why a son s daughter a daughter s daughter a sister or a sister s son should have no right of pre emption whereas a father s brother s son has that right
As s15 star s if the sole owner of a property sells it to his own father mother sister sister s son daughter s daughter or son s daughter the sale can be defeated by the vendor s father s brother s son claiming a right of pre emption
We are thus unable to find any justification for the classification contained in section 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act of the kinsfolk entitled to pre emption
The right of pre emption based on consanguinity is a relie of the feudal 
It is totally inconsistent with the Constitutional me
It is inconsistent with modern Ideas
The reasons such justified its recognition quarter of a century ago namely the preservation of the integrity of rural society 
unity of family life and the agnatic theory of succession are today irrelevant
me list of kinsfolk mentioned as entitled to pre emption is intrinsically defective and self contradictory
There is therefore no reasonable classification and clauses First  Secondly  and  Thirdly  of sl51a First  Secondly  and Thirdly  of s151b Clauses First  Secondly  and thirdly  of s151c and the whole of section 152 are therefore declared ultravires the Constitution
420 We are told that in some cases suits are pending in various courts and where decrees have been passed appeals are pending in appellate courts
Such suits and appeals will now be disposed of in accordance with the declaration granted by us
We are told that there are a few cases where suits have been decreed and the decrees have become final no appeals having been filed against those decrees
The decrees will be binding inter partes and the declaration granted by us will be of no avail to the parties thereto
There will be no order regarding costs


Summary:
Interpretation of statutes Provision of Constitution sought to be interpreted or a statute whose constitutional validity is sought to be questioned Interpretation that will promote march  Progress towards a Socialistic Democratic State To be given
Section 15 of the Punjab Pre emption Act 1913 as applicable in the State of Haryana incorporates the right of pre emption based on consanguinity
The petitioners challenged this right of pre emption based on consanguinity under article 32 of the Constitution on the ground that it offends articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution
It was contended on behalf of the respondent State that the classification in favour of the persons mentioned in section 15 has been made on reasonable basis in the interests of the public 1 to preserve integrity of village community 11 to avoid fragmentation of holdings 111 to implement the agnatic theory of succession iv to promote public and private decency v to facilitate tenants to acquire ownership rights vi to reduce litigation consequent to introduction of an outsider on family property or jointly owned property
Allowing the writ petitions  HELD 11 There is no justification for the classification contained in section 15 of the Punjab Perception Act of the kinsfolk entitled to pre emption
The right of pre emption based on consanguinity is a relic of the feudal past
It is totally inconsistent with modern ideas
The reasons which justified its recognition quarter of a century 400 ago namely the preservation of the integrity of rural society the unity of family life and the agnatic theory of succession are today irrelevant
It is difficult to uphold the classification on the basis of unity and integrity of either the village community or the family or on the basis of the agnatic theory of succession which 18 again in a way connected with the integrity of the family
The list of kinsfolk mentioned as entitled to preemption is intrinsically defective and self contradictory
There is therefore no reasonable classification and clauses First  Secondly  and Thirdly  of 8 151a First  Secondly  and Thirdly  of 8 151b clauses First  Secondly  and Thirdly  of 8 151c and the whole of section 152 are therefore declared ultravires the Constitution
419 E H 12 Clause fourthly  of 8 151a clauses fourthly and fifthly  of 8
151b and clause fourthly  of 8
151 c are valid and do not infringe either article 14 or 15 of the Constitution
416 H 417 A 21 Whether it is the Constitution that is expounded or the constitutional validity of a statute that is considered a cardinal rule 18 to look to the Preamble to the Constitution as the guiding light and to the Directive Principles of State Policy as the Book of interpretation
The Preamble embodies and expresses the hopes and aspirations of the people
The Directive Principles set out proximate goals
At the time of examining statutes against the Constitution it is through these glasses that the court must look distant vision  or near vision 
The Constitution being sui generis where constitutional issues are under consideration narrow interpretative rules which may have relevance when legislative enactments are interpreted may be misplaced
411 D F 22 In 1977 the 42nd amendment proclaimed India as a Socialist Republic
The word socialist  was introduced into the Preamble to the Constitution
The implication of the introduction of the word socialist  which has now become the centre of the hopes and aspirations of the people a beacon to guide and inspire all that is enshrined in the articles of the Constitution is clearly to set up a vibrant throbbing socialist welfare society in the place of a Feudal exploited society
When the Court considers the question whether a 401 statute offends Article 14 of the Constitution it must consider whether a classification that the legislature may have made is consistent with the socialist goals set out in the Preamble and the Directive Principles enumerated in Part IV of the Constitution
A classification which is not in tune with the Constitution is per se unreasonable and cannot be Permitted
411 G H 412 A C 31 The right of pre emption based on consanguinity is antiquated and feudal in origin and in character
The right is very much like another right of feudal origin and character which subsisted here and there in India until recently particularly amongst the princely families namely the right of succession by primogeniture
It is a well known characteristic of feudalism that the control of the most important productive resource land should continue in the hands of the same social and family group
The right of preemption based on consanguinity is a consequence flowing out of this characteristic
It is entirely inconsistent with our Constitutional scheme
Since the Forty Second Amendment India is a socialist republic in which feudalism can obviously have no place and must go
404 G H 405 A 8 32 Avoidance of fragmentation of holdings promotion of private and public decency and reduction of litigation do not seem to have any relevance to the right of pre emption vested in the kinsfolk of the vendor
me real question is whether a classification in favour of kinsfolk of the vendor can be considered reasonable so as to justify a right of pre emption in their favour for the purpose of preserving the integrity of the village community or implementing the agnatic theory of succession or preserving the unity and integrity of the family
The classification cannot be considered reasonable in the circumstances prevailing today whatever justification there might have been for the classification in 1960 when the legislature amended 8 15 of the Punjab Pre emption Act
A scrutiny of the list of persons in whose favour the right of preemption is vested under section 15 reveals certain glaring facts which appear to detract from the theory of preservation of the integrity of the family and the theory of agnatic right of succession
Neither the father nor the mother figures in the list though the father s brother does
The son s daughter and the daughter s son do
The sister and sisters son are 402 excluded though the brother and the brother s son are included
Thus relatives of the same degree are excluded either because they are women or because they are related through women
It is not as if women and those related through women are altogether excluded because the daughter and daughter s son are included
If the daughter is to be treated on a par with the son s son it does not appear logical why the father s son brother should be included and not the father s daughter sister
There are but a few of the intrinsic contradictions that appear in the list of relatives mentioned in s15 as entitled to the right of pre emption
417 G H 418 A B H 419 A C 33 There has been a green and a white revolution in Haryana
This State is also in the process of an industrial revolution
Industries have sprung up through out the State and the population has been in a state of constant flux ant movement
The traditional integrity of the village and the family have now become old wives  tales
Tribal loyalties have disappeared and family tries have weakened
Such is the effect of the march of history and the consequence of industrialisation mechanisation of agriculture development of marketing and trade allurement of professions and office employment opportunity else where and so on
The processes of history cannot be reversed and the court cannot hark back to the traditional rural family oriented society
Quite apart from the break up of the integrity of village life and family life lt is to be noticed that the property in respect of which the right of pre emption is to be exercised is property of which the vendor or the vendors as the case may be have rights of full ownership and their kinsfolk have no present right whatsoever
418 C F 34 The right of pre emption is not to be confused with the right to question the alienation of ancestral immovable property which the male lineal descendants of the vendor have under the Punjab Custom Power to Contest Act 1920
The right of preemption is now entirely a statutory right and dissociated from custom or personal law418 G 41 In Bhau Ram vs Baijnath Singh 1962 Suppl 3 SCR 724 the right of pre emption given to co share was held to be a reasonable restriction on the right to hold acquire or dispose of property conferred by article 191f of 403 the Constitution
What has been said there to uphold the right of pre emption granted to a co sharer as a reasonable restriction on the right to property applies with the same force to justify the classification of co sharers as a class by themselves for the purpose of vesting in them the right of pre emption
416 D E 42 The right of pre emption vested in a tenant can also be easily sustained
There can be no denying that the movement of all land reform legislation has been towards enabling the l tiller of the soil to obtain proprietary right in the soil so that he may not be disturbed from possession of the land and deprived of his livelihood by a superior proprietor
The right of preemption in favour of a tenant granted by the Act is only another instance of a legislation aimed at protecting the tenant
There can be no doubt that tenants form a distinct class by themselves and the right of pre emption granted in their favour is reasonable and in the public interest416 G H Bhau Ram vs B Baijnath Singh 1962 Supp 3 SCR 724 and Sant Ram vs Labh Singh AIR 1965 SC 314 referred to
Ram Sarup vs Munshi Ors  explained