ATAM PRAKASH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

ATAM PRAKASH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Right of pre-emption based on consanguinity is a relic of feudal past, inconsistent with modern constitutional values and intrinsically defective, thus sections 15(1)(a) 'First','Secondly','Thirdly', 15(1)(b) 'First','Secondly','Thirdly', 15(1)(c) 'First','Secondly','Thirdly', and section 15(2) of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 as applicable in Haryana are declared unconstitutional. Pre-emption rights to co-sharers and tenants are valid.

Parties
Petitioner: Atam Prakash; Respondents: State of Haryana & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 February 1986
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) No. 13227 of 1984 Etc. / Original Jurisdiction Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India
Outcome
Sections of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 conferring pre-emption rights based on consanguinity declared unconstitutional; clauses conferring rights on co-sharers and tenants upheld.
Legal Topics
Validity of Punjab Pre Emption Act, 1913 S.15, Equality Under Articles 14 and 15, Pre Emption Based on Consanguinity, Socialistic Interpretation of Statutes
Constitutional Law Property Law Validity of Punjab Pre Emption Act, 1913 S.15 Equality Under Articles 14 and 15 Pre Emption Based on Consanguinity Socialistic Interpretation of Statutes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Atam Prakash

Petitioner

State of Haryana & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) No. 13227 of 1984 Etc. / Original Jurisdiction Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 15 of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (as applicable in Haryana) is constitutionally void due to pre-emption rights based on consanguinity
  2. 2 Whether the classification of kinsfolk in s.15 is a reasonable classification in accord with Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether classification under s.15 promotes socialist and democratic constitutional values

Ratio Decidendi

Right of pre-emption based on consanguinity is a relic of feudal past, inconsistent with modern constitutional values and intrinsically defective, thus sections 15(1)(a) 'First','Secondly','Thirdly', 15(1)(b) 'First','Secondly','Thirdly', 15(1)(c) 'First','Secondly','Thirdly', and section 15(2) of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 as applicable in Haryana are declared unconstitutional. Pre-emption rights to co-sharers and tenants are valid.

Court Disposition

Sections of Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 conferring pre-emption rights based on consanguinity declared unconstitutional; clauses conferring rights on co-sharers and tenants upheld.

Orders

  • Clauses 'First', 'Secondly', 'Thirdly' of s.15(1)(a), s.15(1)(b), s.15(1)(c), and whole of s.15(2) struck down as unconstitutional.
  • Clauses 'Fourthly' of s.15(1)(a), 'Fourthly' and 'Fifthly' of s.15(1)(b), and 'Fourthly' of s.15(1)(c) held valid.