Case: BABU RAM Vs. SANTOKH SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LRS

21 of List II and Entry 7 of List III make the position very clear. The present Entry 5 of List III shows ?succession? in its fullest sense to be a topic in the Concurrent List. The concept of succession will take within its fold testamentary as well as intestate succession. The idea is, therefore, clear that when it comes to ?transfer, alienation of agricultural land? which are transfers inter vivos, the competence under Entry 18 of List II is with the State legislatures but when it comes to ?intestacy and succession? which are essentially transfers by operation of law as per law applicable to the person upon whose death the succession is to open, both the Union as well as State legislatures are competent to deal with the topic. Consequently, going by the principles of Article 254 of the Constitution of India the matter will have to be dealt with. 16. In the present case it is nobody?s case that the matter relating to succession to an interest in agricultural lands is in any way dealt with by any State legislation operating in the State of Himachal Pradesh or that such legislation must prevail in accordance with the principles under Article 254 of the Constitution of India. The field is occupied only by Section 22 of the Act insofar as State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned. The High Court was, therefore, absolutely right in holding that Section 22 of the Act would operate in respect of succession to agricultural lands in the State. 17. Though, succession to an agricultural land is otherwise dealt with under Section 22 of the Act, the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act, before its omission, had made it clear that the provisions of the Act would not apply in cases inter alia of devolution of tenancy rights in respect of agricultural holdings. Thus, the effect of Section 4(2) of the Act before its deletion was quite clear that, though the general field of succession including in respect of agricultural lands was dealt with under Section 22 of the Act, insofar as devolution of tenancy rights with respect to agricultural holdings were concerned, the provisions of Section 22 would be inapplicable. The High Court of Bombay was, therefore, absolutely right in its conclusion. However, with the deletion of Section 4(2) of the Act, now there is no exception to the applicability of Section 22 of the Act. But we are not called upon to consider that facet of the matter. 18. We now turn to the next stage of discussion. Even if it be accepted that the provisions of Section 22 would apply in respect of succession to agricultural lands, the question still remains whether the preferential right could be enjoyed by one or more of the heirs. Would that part also be within the competence of the Parliament? The ?right in or over land, land tenures …..? are within the exclusive competence of the State legislatures under Entry 18 of List II of the Constitution. Pre-emption laws enacted by State legislatures are examples where preferential rights have been conferred upon certain categories and classes of holders in cases of certain transfers of agricultural lands. Whether conferring a preferential right by Section 22 would be consistent with the basic idea and principles is the question. 19. We may consider the matter with following three illustrations:- a) Three persons, unrelated to each other, had jointly purchased an agricultural holding, whereafter one of them wished to dispose of his interest. The normal principle of pre-emption may apply in the matter and any of the other joint holders could pre-empt the sale in accordance with rights conferred in that behalf by appropriate State legislation. b) If those three persons were real brothers or sisters and had jointly purchased an agricultural holding, investing their own funds, again like the above scenario, the right of pre-emption will have to be purely in accordance with the relevant provisions of the State legislation. c) But, if, the very same three persons in illustration (b) had inherited an agricultural holding and one of them was desirous of disposing of his or her interest in the holding, the principles of Section 22 of the Act would step in. The reason is clear. The source of title or interest of any of the heirs in the third illustration, is purely through the succession which is recognized in terms of the provisions of the Act. Since the right or interest itself is conferred by the provisions of the Act, the manner in which said right can be exercised has also been specified in the very same legislation. Therefore, the content of preferential right cannot be disassociated in the present case from the principles of succession. They are both part of the same concept. 20. When the Parliament thought of conferring the rights of succession in respect of various properties including agricultural holdings, it put a qualification on the right to transfer to an outsider and gave preferential rights to the other heirs with a designed object. Under the Shastrik Law, the interest of a coparcener would devolve by principles of survivorship to which an exception was made by virtue of Section 6 of the Act. If the conditions stipulated in Section 6 were satisfied, the devolution of such interest of the deceased would not go by survivorship but in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Since the right itself in certain cases was created for the first time by the provisions of the Act, it was thought fit to put a qualification so that the properties belonging to the family would be held within the family, to the extent possible and no outsider would easily be planted in the family properties. In our view, it is with this objective that a preferential right was conferred upon the remaining heirs, in case any of the heirs was desirous of transferring his interest in the property that he received by way of succession under the Act.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]11. The decisions rendered by various High Courts show the divergent views in the matter. Some High Courts have held that the provisions of Section 22 of the Act would apply to agricultural lands and in the process have followed the reasoning that weighed with the Orissa High Court in Laxmi Debi AIR 1957 Orissa 1 = 22 (1956) CLT 466 . On the other hand, some High Courts have held to the contrary and have followed the decisions of the Punjab High Court in Jaswant9 and of the Allahabad High Court in Prema Devi AIR 1970 Allahabad 238 . It is the latter line of cases which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of his submissions. It must also be stated that wherever there was question of succession to tenancy rights in respect of agricultural holdings, reference was made by some of the High Courts viz. the High Court of Bombay in Tukaram Genba Jadhav and Ors. vs. Laxman Genba Jadhav and Anr.AIR 1994 Bombay 247 = (1994) 96 Bombay Law Reporter 227  to the effect of the then existing provision under Section 4(2) of the Act. We are not going into the reasoning that weighed with various High Courts in every case, but suffice it to say that the following chart may indicate how the question was answered by some of the High Courts.As regards the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, from which the present matter arises, the Division Bench of the High Court in Roshan Lal (deceased) through his LRs. vs. Pritam Singh and ors. R.S.A.No. 258 of 2012 decided on 1.3.2018had considered all relevant decisions on the point and concluded that the provisions of Section 22 of the Act would apply in relation to succession to agricultural lands. The conclusion arrived at in the leading judgment with which the other learned Judge concurred, was:-Thus, ?succession? falls within the scope of entry No. 5 of List-III and in case a narrow and pedantic or myopic view of interpretation is adopted by accepting succession to an agricultural land, bringing it within the scope of ?rights in and over land?, impliedly no meaning would be attached to entry No.5 as each and every word of the list must be given effect to. If there is no local law on the subject, then the special law will prevail which in the instant case is the Succession Act. The scope, object and purpose of codifying Hindu Law is different. It is to achieve the Constitutional mandate. There is no provincial law dealing with the subject. As such, the Central Act mustview taken by the Division Bench was followed by the High Court in the present matter.changes indicated above as against what was earlier available in Entry 21 of List II and Entry 7 of List III make the position very clear. The present Entry 5 of List III shows ?succession? in its fullest sense to be a topic in the Concurrent List. The concept of succession will take within its fold testamentary as well as intestate succession. The idea is, therefore, clear that when it comes to ?transfer, alienation of agricultural land? which are transfers inter vivos, the competence under Entry 18 of List II is with the State legislatures but when it comes to ?intestacy and succession? which are essentially transfers by operation of law as per law applicable to the person upon whose death the succession is to open, both the Union as well as State legislatures are competent to deal with the topic. Consequently, going by the principles of Article 254 of the Constitution of India the matter will have to be dealt with.In the present case it is nobody?s case that the matter relating to succession to an interest in agricultural lands is in any way dealt with by any State legislation operating in the State of Himachal Pradesh or that such legislation must prevail in accordance with the principles under Article 254 of the Constitution of India. The field is occupied only by Section 22 of the Act insofar as State of Himachal Pradesh is concerned. The High Court was, therefore, absolutely right in holding that Section 22 of the Act would operate in respect of succession to agricultural lands in the State.Though, succession to an agricultural land is otherwise dealt with under Section 22 of the Act, the provisions of Section 4(2) of the Act, before its omission, had made it clear that the provisions of the Act would not apply in cases inter alia of devolution of tenancy rights in respect of agricultural holdings. Thus, the effect of Section 4(2) of the Act before its deletion was quite clear that, though the general field of succession including in respect of agricultural lands was dealt with under Section 22 of the Act, insofar as devolution of tenancy rights with respect to agricultural holdings were concerned, the provisions of Section 22 would be inapplicable. The High Court of Bombay was, therefore, absolutely right in its conclusion. However, with the deletion of Section 4(2) of the Act, now there is no exception to the applicability of Section 22 of the Act. But we are not called upon to consider that facet of the matter.We now turn to the next stage of discussion. Even if it be accepted that the provisions of Section 22 would apply in respect of succession to agricultural lands, the question still remains whether the preferential right could be enjoyed by one or more of the heirs. Would that part also be within the competence of the Parliament? The ?right in or over land, land tenures …..? are within the exclusive competence of the State legislatures under Entry 18 of List II of the Constitution. Pre-emption laws enacted by State legislatures are examples where preferential rights have been conferred upon certain categories and classes of holders in cases of certain transfers of agricultural lands. Whether conferring a preferential right by Section 22 would be consistent with the basic idea and principles is the question.We may consider the matter with following three illustrations:-Three persons, unrelated to each other, had jointly purchased an agricultural holding, whereafter one of them wished to dispose of his interest. The normal principle of pre-emption may apply in the matter and any of the other joint holders could pre-empt the sale in accordance with rights conferred in that behalf by appropriate StateIf those three persons were real brothers or sisters and had jointly purchased an agricultural holding, investing their own funds, again like the above scenario, the right of pre-emption will have to be purely in accordance with the relevant provisions of the StateBut, if, the very same three persons in illustration (b) had inherited an agricultural holding and one of them was desirous of disposing of his or her interest in the holding, the principles of Section 22 of the Act would step in.reason is clear. The source of title or interest of any of the heirs in the third illustration, is purely through the succession which is recognized in terms of the provisions of the Act. Since the right or interest itself is conferred by the provisions of the Act, the manner in which said right can be exercised has also been specified in the very same legislation.the content of preferential right cannot be disassociated in the present case from the principles of succession. They are both part of the same concept.When the Parliament thought of conferring the rights of succession in respect of various properties including agricultural holdings, it put a qualification on the right to transfer to an outsider and gave preferential rights to the other heirs with a designed object. Under the Shastrik Law, the interest of a coparcener would devolve by principles of survivorship to which an exception was made by virtue of Section 6 of the Act. If the conditions stipulated in Section 6 were satisfied, the devolution of such interest of the deceased would not go by survivorship but in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Since the right itself in certain cases was created for the first time by the provisions of the Act, it was thought fit to put a qualification so that the properties belonging to the family would be held within the family, to the extent possible and no outsider would easily be planted in the family properties. In our view, it is with this objective that a preferential right was conferred upon the remaining heirs, in case any of the heirs was desirous of transferring his interest in the property that he received by way of succession under the Act.