BHAU RAM versus B. BAIJNATH SINGH

BHAU RAM versus B. BAIJNATH SINGH

Statutory rights of pre-emption on the ground of vicinage under the Rewa Act and sixth ground under Punjab Pre-emption Act are unconstitutional as they impose unreasonable restrictions and are not in public interest; however, pre-emption rights for co-sharers, common staircases, common entrance, and consolidation of agricultural holdings are valid as reasonable restrictions in the public interest.

Parties
Appellant: Bhau Ram; Respondent: B. Baijnath Singh; Intervener: Intervener; Appellants: Appellants in CA No. 430 of 1958; Respondents: Respondents in CA No. 430 of 1958; Appellant: Appellant in CA No. 595/60; Respondent: Respondent in CA No. 595/60
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 March 1962
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Civil Appeal No. 270 of 1955 allowed; Civil Appeals No. 430 of 1958 and No. 595 of 1960 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Pre Emption, Reasonableness of Restrictions, Discrimination, Consolidation of Agricultural Holdings
Property Law Constitutional Law Pre Emption Reasonableness of Restrictions Discrimination Consolidation of Agricultural Holdings

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhau Ram

Appellant

B. Baijnath Singh

Respondent

Intervener

Intervener

Appellants in CA No. 430 of 1958

Appellants

Respondents in CA No. 430 of 1958

Respondents

Appellant in CA No. 595/60

Appellant

Respondent in CA No. 595/60

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statutory rights of pre-emption on grounds of vicinage, co-sharership, and other bases offend Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India
  2. 2 Whether such statutes impose unreasonable restrictions or create discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

Statutory rights of pre-emption on the ground of vicinage under the Rewa Act and sixth ground under Punjab Pre-emption Act are unconstitutional as they impose unreasonable restrictions and are not in public interest; however, pre-emption rights for co-sharers, common staircases, common entrance, and consolidation of agricultural holdings are valid as reasonable restrictions in the public interest.

Court Disposition

Civil Appeal No. 270 of 1955 allowed; Civil Appeals No. 430 of 1958 and No. 595 of 1960 dismissed.

Orders

  • No order as to costs in CA No. 270 of 1955 due to appellant's financial hardship.
  • Other appeals dismissed with costs.