The Supreme Court has held that Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which grants Class-I heirs a preferential right to purchase property proposed to be transferred by another co-heir, applies equally to agricultural land. The Court clarified that the provision is fundamentally a law governing succession and not an independent law relating to pre-emption.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Carol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed the appeal and upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment, which had relied on Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh (2019) to hold that the preferential right under Section 22 extends to agricultural land.
Facts of the Case
The dispute arose after several siblings inherited agricultural land from their father as Class-I heirs. Some of the heirs agreed to sell their respective shares in the property to a third party in 2011.
One of the remaining siblings invoked Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, claiming a preferential right to purchase the property before it could be transferred to an outsider.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit by relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana (1986). However, the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, holding that Section 22 applied even to agricultural land. The Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed this finding, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
Rejecting the appellant’s contention, the Supreme Court held that Section 22 creates a preferential right that arises directly from inheritance among Class-I heirs and cannot be equated with the broader right of pre-emption available under the Punjab Pre-emption Act.
The Court distinguished Atam Prakash, observing that the Constitution Bench had only declared unconstitutional the right of pre-emption based on consanguinity under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, describing it as a relic of the feudal system. It did not examine the constitutional validity of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act.
The Bench further observed that Section 22 is confined exclusively to Class-I heirs who inherit property together from the same intestate. Unlike the Punjab Pre-emption Act, it does not extend rights to tenants, distant relatives or unrelated co-owners.
In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh applied the doctrine of pith and substance and held that the true character of Section 22 is one of succession, not regulation of property transfers. The Court explained that the preferential right cannot exist independently of succession, as it arises solely because the parties inherit property together as Class-I heirs. Consequently, the provision forms an integral part of the law of succession rather than a standalone pre-emption statute.
The Court also rejected the argument that Parliament lacked legislative competence to apply Section 22 to agricultural land. It observed that, in the absence of any conflicting State legislation governing intestate succession, there was no issue of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution. Parliament was therefore fully competent to enact Section 22 as part of the Hindu Succession Act.
Decision
The Supreme Court held that Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act applies to agricultural land and grants Class-I heirs a preferential right to purchase the share proposed to be transferred by another co-heir. Holding that the provision is a law relating to succession and not an independent pre-emption law, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s judgment.
Case: Mahinder & Ors. v. Puran Singh
