The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 14) ruled 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.

Dismissing an appeal challenging the applicability of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act to agricultural land, a Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh upheld the Punjab and Haryana High Court's judgment, which, relying on Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh, (2019) 14 SCC 162, had held that the preferential right under Section 22 extends to agricultural land as well.

The Court ruled that Section 22 of HSA is fundamentally a law governing succession and not a standalone pre-emption law to deny the competence of the Parliament to legislate under List III of the Constitution on matters related to intestacy and succession without excluding agricultural land.

The dispute arose after several siblings, who had inherited agricultural land from their father as Class-I heirs, agreed to sell their shares to a third party in December 2011.

Another sibling 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, relying upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana (1986), which had struck down Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. However, the First Appellate Court reversed that decision by relying on Babu Ram (supra), holding that Section 22 applies even to agricultural land. The High Court affirmed the appellate court's view, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants, referring to the Constitution Bench decision of Atam Prakash (supra), contended that the right to pre-emption under Section 22 of the HAS cannot be extended to succession in agricultural land.

Rejecting the Appellant's contention, the judgment authored by Justice Karol emphasised that Section 22 creates a preferential right flowing directly from inheritance among Class-I heirs and cannot be equated with the broader pre-emption rights under the Punjab Pre-emption Act.

The Court observed that while the Punjab legislation granted pre-emption rights to a wide category of persons, including relatives, co-owners and tenants, Section 22 is confined exclusively to heirs who inherit property together under the Hindu Succession Act.

“It appears to us quite plainly that using Atam Prakash supra to say that the concept of pre-emption itself is unconstitutional would be a stretch of the observations made therein. The primary reason for holding Section 15 of the Punjab Act unconstitutional was that the list of persons mentioned therein did not conform to the theory of agnatic succession, and there was no justification for their inclusion.”, observed the Court, distinguishing Atam Prakash (supra) with Babu Ram (supra), and while also rejecting an argument that the Constitution Bench decision in Atam Prakash rendered the concept of pre-emption itself unconstitutional.

It clarified that the Constitution Bench had invalidated only the right of pre-emption based on consanguinity under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, describing it as a relic of the feudal past.

According to the Court, that decision did not examine the constitutional validity of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. In fact, it further noted that since the constitutional validity of Section 22 had never been challenged, courts could not refuse to enforce it merely by relying on observations made in another case dealing with an entirely different statute.

Pith And Substance Of Section 22 Is Succession Amongst Class I Heirs: Justice N. Kotiswar Singh

In a separate but concurring judgment, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, applying the doctrine of pith and substance, observed that the true nature of Section 22 is succession rather than regulation of property transfers.

The Court observed that the preferential right cannot exist independently of succession because it arises only among Class-I heirs inheriting property from the same intestate.

It does not apply to strangers, unrelated co-owners or persons jointly purchasing property. Accordingly, the Court held that the preferential right and the law of succession are inseparable components of the same legislative scheme

“The preferential right and the succession right are two limbs of the same legislative design dealing with succession amongst the Hindus under the Act. They cannot be read apart and must be read together. This cannot be termed as transfer simpliciter, but essentially arising out of succession, that too confined to Class I heirs only… Section 15 of the Punjab Act conferred the right of pre-emption upon a wide 3 circle of persons connected not only by consanguinity, which includes brothers, cousins, father's brothers and their sons, but also individuals who are not part of the family, such as, tenants and co-owners, irrespective of whether they had any succession relationship with the vendor. It was, in that sense, a free-standing pre-emption right rooted not only in blood relationship, but also to others, having no necessary connection with succession or inheritance. Section 22 of the HSA, by contrast, is confined strictly and exclusively to succession in respect of Class I heirs under the Schedule to the HSA, i.e., persons who have inherited together from the same intestate. No tenant, no distant blood relation, no co-owner can invoke Section 22 as in the case of the Punjab Act. It is a right that lives and dies with the succession relationship. The two provisions are, therefore, fundamentally different in character and scope, and thus, what was held in respect of Section 15 of the Punjab Act in Atam Prakash can have no bearing on interpreting Section 22 of the HSA.”, Justice Kotiswar Singh observed.

Parliament Has Competence To Enact Section 22 For Agricultural Land

“In the absence of any State legislation on the subject of intestacy and succession and consequently, in the absence of any conflict between a State law and the Central Act, the question of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution does not arise at all for consideration. The HSA, as the only legislation operating in this field, will govern the matters relating to succession amongst the Hindus covered under the HSA. The submission that Parliament lacked competence to enact Section 22 of the HSA in respect of agricultural land is, therefore, not only incorrect in principle but also unsupported by any factual foundation in the present case. The question of noncompetence of the Parliament, thus, does not arise.”, the Court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was dismissed, as the challenge to the validity of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act failed.

Cause Title: MAHINDER & ORS. VERSUS PURAN SINGH

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 675

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jitesh Malik, Adv. Mr. Jatin Hooda, Adv. Mr. K Sree Krishna, Adv. Mr. Yogendra Kumar Verma, Adv. Dr. Jyoti Verma, Adv. Mr. Rajan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. C Kranthi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Naman Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. S Subramaniam, Adv. Ms. Abida, Adv. Mr. Ayush Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rashid N. Azam, AOR Mr. Neetesh, Adv. (A.C.)