MARCHI Vs. MATHU RAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal involves a challenge to the validity of Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950 and to the extension by a notification there- under (by the Central Government) of the Punja Pre-emption (Amendment) Act, 1960, to Himachal Pradesh. The appellant's claim for pre-emption was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial Courton the ground that she, as the sister of respondent No. 3, Mast Ram, had no right to pre-empt a sale deed dated 24th September 1965 by Mast Ram to respondents 1 and 2, Mathu Ram and Sant Ram, in view of the amendment of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, made by the amending Act No. 10 of 1960 (hereinafter called the Amendment Act

(2.) The Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, was extended to Himachal Pradesh by the Central Government in 1949, acting under the Himachal Pradesh (Application of Laws) Order, 1948. It is common ground that under Section 15 of the Punjab Preemption Act, 1913, a sister was not entitled to pre-empt a sale by her brother. The Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment' Act (No. 2 of 1929), however, introduced the sister in the order of succession to the separate property of a Hindu male who dies intestate. The effect was that the sister thereafter became entitled to pre-empt a sale by her brother under Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. The amendment Act was extended by the Central Government to Himachal Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, by Notification No. G. S. R. dated 17-5-1963. The effect of the amendment was that the sister of the vendor lost her right of pre-emption which she had accidentally got in 1929.

(3.) The appellant contends firstly that Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, did not give the Central Government the power to extend the Amendment Act to Himachal Pradesh inasmuch as the Central Government could not amend the Existing law, i.e. the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, which already applied to the Himachal Pradesh. Secondly, even if the Central Government had the power to extend the Amendment Act to Himachal Pradesh, then Section 2 of the Union Territories (Laws) Act, 1950, which purported to give such a power to it. was unconstitutional.