Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act Applies to Agricultural Land Inherited by Class-I Heirs

The plaintiff (respondent) and defendants (appellants) are siblings and Class-I legal heirs of Nanhu.

They inherited agricultural land upon his death.

Defendants 1–7 sold their collective shares to a third party (Mrs. Poonam) via a sale deed dated December 28, 2011.

The plaintiff filed a suit on December 8, 2011, challenging the alienation based on the preferential right of purchase under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act (HSA).

The Civil Court dismissed the suit, erroneously applying Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana to hold Section 22 unconstitutional.

The First Appellate Court reversed this, citing Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh, holding that Section 22 applied to agricultural land.

The High Court dismissed the second appeal, affirming the First Appellate Court’s decision.

1. Whether Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies to agricultural land

2. Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Atam Prakash (striking down Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act) renders Section 22 of the HSA unconstitutional or inapplicable

3. Whether the Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 22 of the HSA regarding agricultural land under Entry 5 of List III

The Court applied Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which grants Class-I heirs a preferential right to acquire the interest of a co-heir proposing to transfer their share.

It relied on Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh (2019), which established that while pre-emption under State laws might differ, rights arising strictly through succession under the HSA are governed by Section 22.

The Court utilized the "Doctrine of Pith and Substance" to interpret Entry 5, List III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, noting that "intestacy and succession" includes agricultural land, especially since the exclusionary clause present in the Government of India Act, 1935 was deliberately omitted in the Constitution.

It distinguished Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana (1986), which invalidated pre-emption based on broad consanguinity but did not address limited preferential rights among immediate heirs under the HSA.

The Court reasoned that Section 22 of the HSA is not a "transfer of property" provision but an "incident of succession".

Unlike the Punjab Pre-emption Act, which applied to various categories like tenants and distant relatives, Section 22 is restricted only to Class-I heirs who inherit together.

Consequently, the observations in Atam Prakash regarding the "feudal" nature of consanguinity did not apply to the neutral, succession-based preferential right under the HSA.

Regarding legislative competence, the Court held that since Entry 5 of List III does not exclude agricultural land, Parliament was fully competent to legislate on its devolution.

The Court further noted that the right of pre-emption was properly invoked because the petition was filed before the completion of the sale, satisfying the requirement to assert the right prior to the transfer.

It concluded that there is no conflict between Atam Prakash and Babu Ram, as they deal with different statutory frameworks and scopes.

The Parliament holds the competence under Entry 5, List III to govern succession of agricultural land, and Section 22 is an integral part of that succession scheme.

The appeal was dismissed, the sale was held subject to the plaintiff's preferential right, and the findings of the High Court and First Appellate Court were affirmed.