The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applies to agricultural land inherited through intestate succession, holding that Class I heirs enjoy a statutory preferential right to purchase the share of another co-heir before it is transferred to an outsider.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed the appeal filed by Mahinder and others, affirming the decisions of the First Appellate Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court in favour of respondent Puran Singh. The ruling settles the recurring legal question on whether Section 22 extends to inherited agricultural property.
The bench clarified that this statutory right remains constitutionally valid and is distinct from the pre-emption provisions that were previously struck down under the Punjab Pre-emption Act.
Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026
The dispute arose among siblings who inherited agricultural land from their father as Class I legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act. Several of the co-heirs sold their respective shares to a third-party purchaser through a registered sale deed.
Before the sale deed was executed, one of the siblings approached the civil court seeking enforcement of the preferential purchase right available under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. The trial court dismissed the suit, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, which had declared Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act unconstitutional.
The First Appellate Court reversed that decision, holding that the Supreme Court’s later judgment in Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh had already recognised that Section 22 applies to agricultural land. The High Court upheld the appellate court’s reasoning, prompting the unsuccessful defendants to approach the Supreme Court.
The principal question before the Supreme Court was whether Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act—which grants a preferential right to Class I heirs to acquire another heir’s share before it is transferred—extends to agricultural land inherited through intestate succession. The appellants also argued that Parliament lacked legislative competence to enact such a provision insofar as agricultural land is concerned.
Writing the leading judgment, Justice Sanjay Karol observed that Section 22 creates a statutory preferential right among Class I heirs where inherited property is proposed to be transferred to an outsider.
The Court explained that the provision is designed to preserve inherited property within the family by giving co-heirs the first opportunity to purchase the interest proposed to be sold. It emphasised that this right is rooted in succession law rather than general property law.
The Bench also revisited the legal nature of pre-emption, noting that it is traditionally regarded as a weak right and one of substitution rather than repurchase. However, so long as the legislature continues to recognise such a right, courts are bound to enforce it according to law.
Rejecting the appellants’ principal argument, the Supreme Court held that there is no conflict between the Constitution Bench ruling in Atam Prakash and the later decision in Babu Ram.
The Court explained that Atam Prakash struck down Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act because its classification of eligible pre-emptors violated Article 14 of the Constitution. That provision granted pre-emption rights to a wide range of relatives based largely on consanguinity and contained discriminatory classifications.
In contrast, Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act is confined exclusively to Class I heirs who inherit property together, making it a succession-based statutory right rather than a broad right founded on blood relationships.
The Bench cautioned that observations made while declaring one statutory provision unconstitutional cannot automatically invalidate another provision that was never under constitutional challenge.
According to the Court, extending the reasoning of Atam Prakash to strike down Section 22 would amount to an impermissibly broad reading of that judgment and would create uncertainty in statutory interpretation.
The Supreme Court also rejected the submission that Parliament lacked competence to legislate on agricultural land under the Hindu Succession Act.
The Court analysed the constitutional scheme relating to legislative powers and held that Entry 5 of the Concurrent List, dealing with intestacy and succession, empowers Parliament to legislate on succession without excluding agricultural land.
Justice Kotiswar Singh, in his concurring opinion, observed that the exclusion relating to agricultural land existed under the Government of India Act, 1935, but was consciously omitted when the Constitution was framed. Consequently, Parliament possesses complete legislative competence to enact succession laws governing agricultural land.
The concurring opinion further explained that Section 22 is not a law regulating transfers of agricultural land. Instead, it merely imposes a succession-based qualification on the right of a co-heir to transfer inherited property, making it an integral part of the statutory scheme governing inheritance.
The Court also rejected the argument that the plaintiff ought to have separately challenged the sale deed.
It noted that the plaintiff had instituted proceedings under Section 22 before execution of the sale deed. Since the statutory preferential right had already been asserted before the transfer was completed, there was no legal necessity to institute fresh proceedings challenging the subsequent sale.
The Bench reiterated that the right of pre-emption is intended to operate at the stage when a transfer is proposed, and a person asserting that right before completion of the sale satisfies the statutory requirement.
Finding no merit in any of the appellants’ submissions, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the High Court.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
