Case: Amir Singh And Another Vs. Ram Singh And Others(And Connected Appeals)

the unamended section must operate retrospectively. He, therefore, suggests that the respondents ought to be given an opportunity to prove their case under the fourth clause of s. 15(c) as amended. In this connection, he has referred us to the fact that this plea has been specifically taken by the respondents in their statement of the case before this Court. It is on this plea that the question about the effect of the retrospective operation of s. 31 arises.Mr. Achhru Ram contends that though s. 31 is retrospective and in that sense the rights to preempt which vested in the respondents at the time when they instituted the present suits have been retrospectively taken away from them, it cannot be said that the right to preempt to which the respondents lay claim in the present appeals has been retrospectively created. His argument is that by the amending Act, the Legislature has no doubt provided that certain classes of persons who were entitled to preempt under the old Act should not be given that right and the extinction of the said right should operate retrospectively, but that cannot be said to be the policy of the legislature in regard to the rights which have been created for the first time by the amending Act.4. The argument thus presented may prima facie appear to be attractive; but a close examination of the words used in s. 31 shows that it is not well founded. Section 31, in substance, requires the appellate Court to pass a decree in a preemption matter which is not inconsistent with the provisions of the amending Act. In the present appeals, if we were to uphold the respondents right to claim preemption on the strength of the provisions of s. 15(c) as they stood prior to the amendment, that would be inconsistent with the provisions of the amending Act, and so, the change made by the amending Act has to be given effect to and the right which once vested in the respondents must be deemed to have been retrospectively taken away from them. On this point there is no dispute. Would it make any difference in the legal position when we are dealing with rights which are created for the first time by the amending Act on the date when this Court will pass a decree in the present appeals? If the rights created in favour of the tenants are not recognised and a decree is passed ignoring the said rights, that decree would be inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the amending Act, and s. 31 has clearly enjoined that no Court shall pass a decree which is inconsistent with the provisions of the amending Act. The position, therefore, appears to be clear that when a decree is passed in a preemption matter pending before the appellate Court, that Court must refuse to recognise the right to preempt which was recognised by the unamended Act but has been dropped by the amending Act just as much as it must recognise rights which were not recognised by the unamended Act but have been created by the amending Act. The retrospective operation of s.31 necessarily involves effect being given to the substantive provisions of s. 15 retrospectively and that will apply as much to the extinction of the old rights as to the creation of new ones. The retrospective operation of s. 15 which is consequential on the retrospective operation of s.31 is not affected by the fact that the right of preemption prescribed by s. 15 if; referred to as a right which shall vest in the persons specified in subsections (a), (b) and (c) of s. 15(1).It is, however, urged that the law of preemption requires that the preemptor must possess the right to preempt at the date of the sale, at the date of the suit and at the date of the decree. This position cannot be disputed. But when it is suggested that the respondents cannot claim that they had the right when they brought the present suit or when the sales were effected, the argument ignores the true effect of the retrospective operation of s. 31 and s. 15. If the inevitable consequence of the retrospective operation of s.31 is to make the substantive provisions of s. 15 also retrospective, it follows that by fiction introduced by the retrospective operation, the rights which the respondents claim under the amended provisions of s. 15 must be deemed to have vested in them at the relevant time. If the relevant provisions are made retrospective by the legislature, the retrospective operation must be given full effect to, and that meets the argument that the right to preempt did not exist in the respondents at the time when the sale transactions in question took place. Therefore, we are satisfied that the respondents are entitled to claim that they should be given an opportunity to prove their case that as tenants of the lands in suit they have a right to claim preemption. Incidentally, when the respondents filed the present suits, they had a right to preempt under the relevant provisions of the Act as they stood at that time; by the amendment, that right has been taken away, but instead they claim another right by virtue of their status as tenants of the lands, and this right is, by the retrospective operation of s. 31, available to them. We must accordingly set aside the decrees passed by the High Court and send the matters back to the trial Court with a direction that it should allow the respondents an opportunity to amend their claims by putting forth their right to ask for preemption as tenants under the amended provision of 8. 15. After the amendments are thus made, the appellants should be given an opportunity to file their written statements and then appropriate issues should be framed and the suits tried and disposed of in the light of the findings on those issues in accordance with law.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]We have already noticed that some persons whose right to preempt was recognised by the corresponding provisions of the parent Act, have been omitted by the amended section. The amended section has also introduced another class of persons on whom the right to claim pre- emption has been conferred. These persons are the tenants who hold under tenancy of the vendors the land or property sold or a part thereof. This class of tenants has been introduced in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of amended s. 15. Clause four of s. 15(1) (c) provides that the right of pre- emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property shall vest in the tenants who hold under tenancy of the vendors or any one of them the land or property sold or a part thereof. Similar provisions are made in clauses (a) &- (b) of the saidthe present appeals, if we were to uphold the respondents right to claim preemption on the strength of the provisions of s. 15(c) as they stood prior to the amendment, that would be inconsistent with the provisions of the amending Act, and so, the change made by the amending Act has to be given effect to and the right which once vested in the respondents must be deemed to have been retrospectively taken away from them. On this point there is no dispute. Would it make any difference in the legal position when we are dealing with rights which are created for the first time by the amending Act on the date when this Court will pass a decree in the present appeals? If the rights created in favour of the tenants are not recognised and a decree is passed ignoring the said rights, that decree would be inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the amending Act, and s. 31 has clearly enjoined that no Court shall pass a decree which is inconsistent with the provisions of the amending Act. The position, therefore, appears to be clear that when a decree is passed in a preemption matter pending before the appellate Court, that Court must refuse to recognise the right to preempt which was recognised by the unamended Act but has been dropped by the amending Act just as much as it must recognise rights which were not recognised by the unamended Act but have been created by the amending Act. The retrospective operation of s.31 necessarily involves effect being given to the substantive provisions of s. 15 retrospectively and that will apply as much to the extinction of the old rights as to the creation of new ones. The retrospective operation of s. 15 which is consequential on the retrospective operation of s.31 is not affected by the fact that the right of preemption prescribed by s. 15 if; referred to as a right which shall vest in the persons specified in subsections (a), (b) and (c) of s. 15(1).It is, however, urged that the law of preemption requires that the preemptor must possess the right to preempt at the date of the sale, at the date of the suit and at the date of the decree. This position cannot be disputed. But when it is suggested that the respondents cannot claim that they had the right when they brought the present suit or when the sales were effected, the argument ignores the true effect of the retrospective operation of s. 31 and s. 15. If the inevitable consequence of the retrospective operation of s.31 is to make the substantive provisions of s. 15 also retrospective, it follows that by fiction introduced by the retrospective operation, the rights which the respondents claim under the amended provisions of s. 15 must be deemed to have vested in them at the relevant time. If the relevant provisions are made retrospective by the legislature, the retrospective operation must be given full effect to, and that meets the argument that the right to preempt did not exist in the respondents at the time when the sale transactions in question took place. Therefore, we are satisfied that the respondents are entitled to claim that they should be given an opportunity to prove their case that as tenants of the lands in suit they have a right to claim preemption. Incidentally, when the respondents filed the present suits, they had a right to preempt under the relevant provisions of the Act as they stood at that time; by the amendment, that right has been taken away, but instead they claim another right by virtue of their status as tenants of the lands, and this right is, by the retrospective operation of s. 31, available to them. We must accordingly set aside the decrees passed by the High Court and send the matters back to the trial Court with a direction that it should allow the respondents an opportunity to amend their claims by putting forth their right to ask for preemption as tenants under the amended provision of 8. 15. After the amendments are thus made, the appellants should be given an opportunity to file their written statements and then appropriate issues should be framed and the suits tried and disposed of in the light of the findings on those issues in accordance with law.