LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, which prioritizes male lineal descendants in matters of succession to agricultural land, is unconstitutional. CASE TYPE: Civil Law, Land Reform, Succession. Case Name: Har Naraini Devi & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. Judgment Date: 20 September 2022

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 20 September 2022
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 22957 of 2017
Judges: Hemant Gupta, J., Vikram Nath, J. (authored the judgment).
Can a state law on agricultural land succession that favors male descendants over female relatives be valid in light of constitutional principles of equality? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case, examining the interplay between the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Court considered whether the succession rules under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, which prioritize male lineal descendants, are discriminatory and violate constitutional norms. This judgment clarifies the scope of state laws on agricultural land succession and their relationship with personal laws.

Case Background

The case revolves around the inheritance of agricultural land originally owned by Mukhtiar Singh. Mukhtiar Singh had three sons: Mahinder Singh, Jagdish Singh, and Ishwar Singh. All three sons predeceased him. Mukhtiar Singh passed away on 06 June 1997. The appellants, Har Naraini Devi (widow) and her daughter, are the wife and daughter of Ishwar Singh. The contesting respondents are the sons of Ishwar Singh, Jaidev and Amit. Upon Mukhtiar Singh’s death, the revenue records were updated to reflect the inheritance of his agricultural land by his grandsons Jaidev and Amit (sons of Ishwar Singh) according to Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. This provision prioritizes male lineal descendants, excluding the widow and daughter of Ishwar Singh from inheriting the land. The appellants challenged this exclusion, arguing that it was unconstitutional and discriminatory.

Timeline

Date Event
1975 Mahinder Singh (son of Mukhtiar Singh) died.
1976 Jagdish Singh (son of Mukhtiar Singh) died.
1985 Ishwar Singh (son of Mukhtiar Singh) died.
06 June 1997 Mukhtiar Singh died.
09 September 2005 The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 was enacted, deleting Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
11 September 2009 The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954.
05 May 2022 Advocate on Record for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was discharged from the case.
20 September 2022 The Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal.

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. They argued that this provision violated Articles 14, 15, 254, and 21 of the Constitution by discriminating against women in matters of succession. The High Court, however, dismissed the petition, relying on the fact that the 1954 Act was included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution before the Kesavananda Bharati judgment and was therefore protected under Article 31B. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of this case involves the interpretation and application of several key legal provisions:

  • Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954: This section outlines the order of succession for male Bhumidhars or Asamis (landholders). Section 50(a) specifically states that the interest in the holding shall devolve to male lineal descendants in the male line of descent. The provision states:

    “50. General order of succession from males. – Subject to the provisions of Section 48 and 52, when a Bhumidhar or Asami being a male dies, his interest in his holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of the succession given below: a) Male lineal descendants in the male line of the descent: Provided that no member of this class shall inherit if any male descendant between him and the deceased is alive: Provided further that the son or sons of a predeceased on how low so ever shall inherit the share which would have devolved upon the deceased if he had been then alive:”

  • Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
  • Article 15 of the Constitution of India: Prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.
  • Article 254 of the Constitution of India: Deals with inconsistencies between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the State Legislatures.
  • Article 21 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees the protection of life and personal liberty.
  • Article 31B of the Constitution of India: Provides immunity to laws placed in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution from being challenged on the grounds of violating fundamental rights.
  • Entry 18 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule: Grants states the power to legislate on matters related to land, including land tenures, and the transfer and alienation of agricultural land.
  • Entry 5 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule: Grants both the Parliament and the State Legislatures the power to legislate on matters related to succession.
  • Entry 7 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule: Grants both the Parliament and the State Legislatures the power to legislate on matters related to contracts, but not including contracts relating to agricultural land.
  • Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: (Prior to its deletion) stated that nothing in the Act would affect laws providing for the devolution of tenancy rights in respect of agricultural holdings.
  • Section 6 of the General Clauses Act: States that the repeal of an enactment would not affect the previous operation of such an enactment.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Land Allotment Based on Employment Status at Time of Allotment: S.V. Asgaonkar vs. MMRDA (2018)

Arguments

The appellants argued that Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, is unconstitutional due to its discriminatory nature and its conflict with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The arguments and sub-arguments are summarized below:

  • Appellants’ Arguments:
    • Repugnancy under Article 254: The appellants contended that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, being a parliamentary law, should prevail over the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, a state law, due to repugnancy. They argued that the 1956 Act is a special law, while the 1954 Act is a general law.
    • Impact of Deletion of Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act: The appellants argued that with the deletion of Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the succession to agricultural land should now be governed by the 1956 Act and not the 1954 Act.
    • Retrospective Application of Vineeta Sharma Judgment: The appellants argued that the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors., which gave retrospective effect to the 2005 amendment of Section 6 of the 1956 Act, should also apply to the deletion of Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act.
    • Violation of Articles 14 and 15: Section 50(a) of the 1954 Act is discriminatory on the basis of sex, violating Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
    • Reliance on Babu Ram vs. Santokh Singh: The appellants relied on this case to argue that the provisions of the 1956 Act should apply to agricultural land succession.
  • Respondents’ (Amicus Curiae) Arguments:
    • Protection under Articles 31A and 31B: The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, is protected from challenges under Articles 14 and 15 due to its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution and Articles 31A and 31B.
    • Special Nature of the 1954 Act: The 1954 Act is a special law concerning agricultural land, and its provisions are in line with established succession practices for agricultural land.
    • No Impact of Deletion of Section 4(2): The deletion of Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not affect the provisions of the 1954 Act.
    • 1954 Act as a Special Law: The 1954 Act is a special law for agricultural land, whereas the 1956 Act is a general law, thus the 1954 Act should govern agricultural land succession.
    • Move Towards Uniform Civil Code: The succession rules under the 1954 Act apply universally, irrespective of religion, caste, or creed, aligning with the concept of a Uniform Civil Code.
    • Long-Standing Law: The established law under the 1954 Act should not be disturbed after decades of application.

Submissions Table

Main Submission Sub-Submission (Appellants) Sub-Submission (Respondents)
Repugnancy under Article 254 The 1956 Act, being a parliamentary law, should prevail over the 1954 Act. The 1956 Act is a special law, and the 1954 Act is a general law. The question of repugnancy does not arise as the 1954 Act is under the State List (List II) and the 1956 Act is under the Concurrent List (List III). The 1954 Act is a special law for agricultural land.
Impact of Deletion of Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act With the deletion of Section 4(2), the succession to agricultural land should now be governed by the 1956 Act. The deletion of Section 4(2) does not affect the provisions of the 1954 Act. The 1954 Act is a special law for agricultural land.
Retrospective Application of Vineeta Sharma Judgment The retrospective effect of the 2005 amendment in the 1956 Act should also apply to the deletion of Section 4(2). The judgment in Vineeta Sharma only applies to Section 6 of the 1956 Act and does not make the deletion of Section 4(2) retrospective.
Violation of Articles 14 and 15 Section 50(a) of the 1954 Act is discriminatory on the basis of sex, violating Articles 14 and 15. The 1954 Act is protected under Articles 31A and 31B of the Constitution due to its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule.
Reliance on Babu Ram vs. Santokh Singh The provisions of the 1956 Act should apply to agricultural land succession based on the precedent set in Babu Ram. The Babu Ram case applies only to states where there is no specific state law for agricultural land succession, unlike Delhi.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following issues:

  1. Whether Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, is unconstitutional for being ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 254 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Issue Court’s Decision and Reasoning
Whether Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, is unconstitutional for being ultra vires Articles 14, 15, 254 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court held that Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, is not unconstitutional. It stated that the 1954 Act is protected under Article 31B of the Constitution, as it was included in the Ninth Schedule before the Kesavananda Bharati judgment. The Court further held that there is no repugnancy between the 1954 Act and the 1956 Act. The Court also held that the 1954 Act is a special law dealing with agricultural land tenures, and the deletion of Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act does not affect its applicability.

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following legal authorities:

Authority Court How Considered Legal Point
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala [1973 (4) SCC 225] Supreme Court of India Referred to for the principle that laws included in the Ninth Schedule before this judgment are protected under Article 31B. Protection of laws in the Ninth Schedule.
Waman Rao and Ors. vs. Union of India [1981 2 SCC 362] Supreme Court of India Referred to for the consistent stand of the Court regarding protection under Article 31B. Protection of laws in the Ninth Schedule.
I.R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [(2007) 2 SCC 1] Supreme Court of India Referred to for the consistent stand of the Court regarding protection under Article 31B. Protection of laws in the Ninth Schedule.
M/s. Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs. ICICI Bank and Ors. [(2018) 1 SCC 407] Supreme Court of India Cited to establish that repugnancy under Article 254 arises only if both laws are referable to the Concurrent List. Repugnancy under Article 254.
Parshanti Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation [(1997) 11 SCC 157] Supreme Court of India Cited to support the view that state laws relating to agricultural land tenures are special laws. Special nature of state laws on agricultural land.
L.R. Brothers Indo Flora Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [(2020) SCC Online SC 705] Supreme Court of India Cited to support that amendments are deemed to apply prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively. Prospective application of amendments.
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra [(1994) 4 SCC 602] Supreme Court of India Cited to support that amendments are deemed to apply prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively. Prospective application of amendments.
Union of India v. Zora Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 673] Supreme Court of India Cited to support that amendments are deemed to apply prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively. Prospective application of amendments.
Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE [(2016) 3 SCC 643] Supreme Court of India Cited to establish that a repeal is to be treated similarly as an omission and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would apply equally to an omission as it would apply to a repeal. Effect of repeal and omission on previous operation of law.
Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. [(2020) 9 SCC 1] Supreme Court of India Referred to for the proposition that the amendment to Section 6 of the 1956 Act has retrospective effect, but clarified that this does not apply to the deletion of Section 4(2). Retrospective application of amendments.
Babu Ram vs. Santokh Singh and others [(2019) 14 SCC 162] Supreme Court of India Distinguished to clarify that the 1956 Act applies to agricultural land succession only when there is no state enactment covering the field. Applicability of 1956 Act to agricultural land.
See also  Supreme Court Upholds Enhanced Compensation for Land Acquisition: Madhukar Kamble vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation (2022)

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. The Court’s reasoning was based on several key points:

Submission by Parties Court’s Treatment
Repugnancy under Article 254: The appellants argued that the 1956 Act should prevail over the 1954 Act due to repugnancy. The Court rejected this argument, stating that Article 254 applies only when both laws are under the Concurrent List (List III). The 1954 Act falls under the State List (List II), and therefore, no repugnancy arises.
Impact of Deletion of Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act: The appellants argued that the deletion of Section 4(2) means the 1956 Act should now govern agricultural land succession. The Court held that the deletion of Section 4(2) does not affect the 1954 Act because the 1954 Act is a special law for agricultural land. Further, the deletion is prospective and cannot affect rights already crystallized.
Retrospective Application of Vineeta Sharma Judgment: The appellants argued that the retrospective effect of the 2005 amendment in the 1956 Act should also apply to the deletion of Section 4(2). The Court clarified that the retrospective effect of Vineeta Sharma applies only to Section 6 of the 1956 Act and not to the deletion of Section 4(2).
Gender bias/ women empowerment: The appellants argued that Section 50(a) of the 1954 Act is discriminatory against women. The Court stated that since the 1954 Act is protected under the Ninth Schedule, this argument is not valid.
Effect of the judgment in Babu Ram: The appellants relied on the Babu Ram case to argue that the 1956 Act should apply. The Court distinguished Babu Ram, clarifying that it applies only to states without a specific state law for agricultural land succession, unlike Delhi.
Authority Court’s View
Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala [1973 (4) SCC 225] The Court relied on this case to reiterate that laws included in the Ninth Schedule before this judgment are protected under Article 31B.
Waman Rao and Ors. vs. Union of India [1981 2 SCC 362] The Court referred to this case to support the consistent stand that laws included in the Ninth Schedule before the Kesavananda Bharati judgment are protected under Article 31B.
I.R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. [(2007) 2 SCC 1] The Court referred to this case to support the consistent stand that laws included in the Ninth Schedule before the Kesavananda Bharati judgment are protected under Article 31B.
M/s. Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs. ICICI Bank and Ors. [(2018) 1 SCC 407] The Court cited this case to establish that repugnancy under Article 254 arises only if both laws are referable to the Concurrent List.
Parshanti Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation [(1997) 11 SCC 157] The Court cited this case to support the view that state laws relating to agricultural land tenures are special laws.
L.R. Brothers Indo Flora Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise [(2020) SCC Online SC 705] The Court cited this case to support that amendments are deemed to apply prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively.
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra [(1994) 4 SCC 602] The Court cited this case to support that amendments are deemed to apply prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively.
Union of India v. Zora Singh [(1992) 1 SCC 673] The Court cited this case to support that amendments are deemed to apply prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively.
Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE [(2016) 3 SCC 643] The Court cited this case to establish that a repeal is to be treated similarly as an omission and Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would apply equally to an omission as it would apply to a repeal.
Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. [(2020) 9 SCC 1] The Court referred to this case to clarify that the retrospective effect applies only to Section 6 of the 1956 Act and not to the deletion of Section 4(2).
Babu Ram vs. Santokh Singh and others [(2019) 14 SCC 162] The Court distinguished this case, clarifying that it applies only to states without a specific state law for agricultural land succession.
See also  Child Custody Dispute: Supreme Court Orders Return of Children to USA

The Court emphasized that the 1954 Act is a special law dealing with agricultural land tenures, and it is protected under Article 31B of the Constitution. The Court also clarified that the deletion of Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act does not have a retrospective effect and does not impact the applicability of the 1954 Act. The Court also held that the succession had opened prior to 09.09.2005, the rights of the descendants in terms of Section 50 became crystallized on account of the said Section read with Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act. Therefore, the deletion of Section 4(2) cannot have retrospective effect.

The Court stated:

“In the present case, 1954 Act is not referable to any matter enumerated in List III but it is referable to Entry 18 of List II. Thus, no question of repugnancy would arise in view of Article 254 of the Constitution.”

“The deletion of Section 4(2) took place w.e.f 09.09.2005. Therefore, the effect of the deletion can only be in respect of successions which opened on or after 09.09.2005.”

“Once we are holding that succession in the present case with respect to the property in question is governed by the 1954 Act, any amendment even if it has a retrospective effect in the 1956 Act will have no bearing or impact on the provisions of succession governed by the 1954 Act.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the constitutional protection afforded to the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, under Article 31B and its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule. The Court emphasized the special nature of the 1954 Act as a state law governing agricultural land tenures, which distinguishes it from the general succession laws under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The Court also considered the principle of prospective application of amendments, holding that the deletion of Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act did not have retrospective effect and could not alter the succession rights that had already crystallized under the 1954 Act. The need to maintain settled law was also a significant factor, as the Court was hesitant to disturb long-standing legal practices governing agricultural land succession.

Sentiment Percentage
Constitutional protection of the 1954 Act under Article 31B and Ninth Schedule 40%
Special nature of the 1954 Act as a state law governing agricultural land 30%
Prospective application of amendments and crystallized rights 20%
Need to maintain settled law and avoid disturbing long-standing practices 10%
Ratio Percentage
Fact 20%
Law 80%

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Is Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, unconstitutional?
↓
Consideration 1: Is the 1954 Act protected under Article 31B?
↓
Yes: The 1954 Act was included in the Ninth Schedule before the Kesavananda Bharati judgment.
↓
Consideration 2: Is there repugnancy between the 1954 Act and the 1956 Act under Article 254?
↓
No: The 1954 Act falls under the State List (List II), while the 1956 Act falls under the Concurrent List (List III).
↓
Consideration 3: Does the deletion of Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act affect the applicability of the 1954 Act?
↓
No: The 1954 Act is a special law for agricultural land, and the deletion is prospective.
↓
Conclusion: Section 50(a) of the 1954 Act is not unconstitutional.

Key Takeaways

  • The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, remains the governing law for succession to agricultural land in Delhi.
  • Section 50(a) of the 1954 Act, which prioritizes male lineal descendants, is constitutionally valid due to its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule and the special nature of the law.
  • The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not override state laws specifically dealing with agricultural land tenures.
  • Amendments to laws are generally prospective unless explicitly stated to be retrospective.
  • The deletion of Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, does not affect the applicability of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, for successions that opened before the deletion came into effect.

Implications

This judgment has significant implications for land succession laws in India, especially in states with specific land reform acts. It reinforces the constitutional validity of state laws governing agricultural land tenures and clarifies that these laws are not superseded by general succession laws like the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, unless there is a clear conflict under Article 254. The judgment also highlights the protection afforded to laws included in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution. This decision emphasizes the importance of specific state laws in regulating agricultural land and clarifies the scope of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in relation to agricultural land.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Har Naraini Devi vs. Union of India reaffirms the validity of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, and its provisions regarding succession to agricultural land. The Court’s decision underscores the importance of state laws in regulating land tenures and the limited scope of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, in the context of agricultural land. The judgment also clarifies that amendments to laws are generally prospective and do not affect rights that have already crystallized under existing laws. This decision provides clarity on the interplay between state land reform laws and general succession laws, particularly in the context of agricultural land.

Source: Har Naraini Devi vs. Union of India