Naeem Bano Alias Gaindo vs Mohammad Rahees & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

22 November 2024

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 13050 of 2024

Result

Disposed

Bench

B.V. Nagarathna, N Kotiswar Singh

Citation

[2024] 11 S.C.R. 1492 : 2024 INSC 1000

Acts & Sections

Constitution TP Act TP Act

Issue for consideration

Inconsistency between the U.P. State amendment and the subsequent Parliamentary amendment to Section 106, Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Whether in view of the Parliament amending a provision subsequent to a State legislature’s amendment of a provision of law in the Concurrent List, the Parliamentary amendment would apply.

Headnote

Constitution of India – Article 254; Entry 6, List III, Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – s.106 – Legislature of State of U.P. amended Section 106 by amendment dated 30.11.1954 by which the words “fifteen days’ notice” in Section 106 of the T.P. Act were substituted by “thirty days’ notice” and the substituted clause prevailed in the State of U.P – Parliament by Act 3 of 2003 amended Section 106 w.e.f 31.12.2002 – In view thereof, the substitution in Section 106 made by the Legislature of the State of U.P., if stood repealed and Section 106 as amended w.e.f 31.12.2002 by the Parliament, would apply:

Held: Yes – Article 254 is an instance of Parliamentary supremacy – When there is an inconsistency between a law made by the Parliament and a law made by the Legislature of a State, Article

254 would apply – The Proviso to clause (2) qualifies the exception provided in Clause (2) to Article 254 – It empowers the Parliament to repeal or amend a repugnant State law, either directly, or by itself enacting a law repugnant to the State law with respect to the ‘same matter’ – The subject “transfer of property other than agricultural land” is one which falls within Entry 6, List III and both the Parliament and the State Legislatures have legislative competence to make laws on the said subject including enacting an amendment to any provision of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Proviso to Clause 2 of Article 254 applies to the present case – W.e.f 31.12.2002, the Parliamentary amendment would apply – The U.P. amendment to Section 106 would pale into insignificance owing to implied repugnancy and inconsistency between the U.P. State amendment and the Parliamentary amendment to Section 106 of the T.P. Act in the year 2003 even if the earlier U.P. amendment had been reserved for consideration of the President and had received the Presidential assent – Thus, on the Parliament amending a provision subsequent to a State legislature’s amendment of a provision of law found in the Concurrent List, the Parliamentary amendment would apply – Impugned order set aside – High Court to dispose of the respondent-tenants revision petition in view of the observations made and on merits as expeditiously as possible. [Paras 8.1, 8.4, 9.4-9.8]

Order Leave granted. 2. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 18.11.2022 passed in Matters under Article 227 No.8207 of 2017, the appellant/landlord is before this Court. By the impugned order, the High Court stated that since there is a matter under Article 227 No.5718 of 2019, which has to be answered by a larger Bench of the High Court by way of a reference and which has a bearing on the case, the interim order is continued until further orders. A direction was issued that the matter may be considered after the answer is given by the larger Bench, referred to above. Being aggrieved by the sa

View Subscription Plans →