Har Naraini Devi & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors.

Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – State enactment relating to Agricultural land tenures, a special law – Held: The argument relating to 1956 Act being a special law and 1954 being a general law is completely misconceived as any State enactment relating to Agricultural land tenures is a special law.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Repugnancy- Article 254 of the Constitution The question of repugnancy arises only if both the Parliament and the State legislature have made law with respect to any one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent list (List III). In the present case two enactments of 1956 and 1954 are relatable to Entries in List III and List II respectively. The relevant Entries in List III is Entry Nos.5 and 7 whereas relevant Entry of List II is Entry No.18. Apart from the fact that a bare reading of Article 254 reflects that it refers to repugnancy in law made with respect to matters enumerated in the Concurrent list (List III), this Court has also laid down that question of repugnancy would not come into existence unless it is first established that both enactments are under the Concurrent list (List III). 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 other part of the argument relating to 1956 Act being a special law and 1954 being a general law is completely misconceived. In a series of judgments, not only of this Court but also of different High Courts, it has been expressed that any State enactment relating to Agricultural land tenures is a special law. [Paras 18-20][509-G-H; 510-E-F; 511-B-C]

2.1 Deletion of Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act:

Till 2005, to be specific 09.09.2005, when the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 was enacted, Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act remained on the statute. It is not in dispute that the property in question is agricultural property, and therefore, in 1997 at the time when Mukhtiyar Singh died, the devolution of interest (inheritance) would be determinable on the said date, in accordance with the law existing at that time. In 1997 Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act, was very much on the statute, its subsequent deletion would not have any impact on the rights of inheritance, which had already accrued and crystallised, prior to the amendment. Therefore, on facts deletion of Section 4(2) of the 1956 Act would not help the appellants. All amendments are deemed to apply prospectively unless expressly specified to apply retrospectively or intended to have been done so by the legislature. In the present case there is no such intention reflecting from the amending Act. By virtue of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the repeal of an enactment would not affect the previous operation of such an enactment. On account of Sections 6(b) and 6(c) of General Clauses Act, the omission of Section 4(2) of 1956 Act cannot affect the previous operation of the said Section 4(2). 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. This is because under Section 6(b) and 6(c) of the General Clauses Act repeal cannot affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed and cannot affect the previous operation of any enactment so repealed and cannot affect any right which may have been acquired or accrued. In the present case, it is to be held that succession has 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. There is one more reason, why the existence of Section 4(2) in the 1956 Act and its deletion will not have any impact in the present case. The reason is that the 1954 Act is a special law, dealing with fragmentation, ceiling, and devolution of tenancy rights over agricultural holdings only, whereas the 1956 Act is a general law, providing for succession to a Hindu by religion as stated in Section 2 thereof. The existence or absence of Section 4(2) in the 1956 Act would be immaterial. [Paras 22-26][511-FG; 512-A-D; 513-G-H; 514-A-B]

3. Once it is held 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. Moreover, this Court in the judgment of Vineeta Sharma has given retrospective application only to Section 6 of the 1956 Act as amended in 2005. There is no declaration regarding deletion of Section 4(2) being retrospective. [Para 27][514-D-E]

Waman Rao and Ors. vs. Union of India 1981 2 SCC

362 : [1981] 2 SCR 1; M/s. Innoventive Industries Ltd. vs. ICICI Bank and Ors. (2018) 1 SCC 407 : [2017] 8 SCR 33; L.R. Brothers Indo Flora Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (2020) SCC Online SC 705; Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC

602 : [1994] 1 Suppl. SCR 360; Union of India v. Zora Singh (1992)1 SCC 673 : [1991] 2 Suppl. SCR 478; Shree Bhagwati Steel Rolling Mills v. CCE (2016) 3 SCC

643 : [2015] 12 SCR 332 – relied on.

Babu Ram vs. Santokh Singh and others (2019) 14 SCC

162 – held inapplicable.

Kesavananda Bharati vs. State of Kerala 1973 (4) SCC

225 : [1973] Suppl. SCR 1; I.R. Coelho (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (2007) 2 SCC 1;

Parshanti Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation (1997)

11 SCC 157 : (1998) 9 JT 504; Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 1 : [2020] 10 SCR 135 – referred to.