PRITHI PAL SINGH Vs. MILKA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts are given in the order of reference and need not be restated. The following question arises for consideration: Whether Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) bars the right of pre-emption granted to:-- (i) tenants under Section 15 (1) (a) FOURTHLY of the Act and (ii) co-sharers under Section 15 (1) (b) FOURTHLY of the Act. In order to resolve this controversy, the historical development of the law of preemption deserves to be noticed. In R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalla v. Union of India, AIR 1957 SC 628, it was observed as under:

(2.) This provision was challenged as being violative of Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution in Uttam Singh v. Kartar Singh, AIR 1954 Punj 55 (FB), and it was observed that the objects underlying Sections 15 and 16 of the Act were: (1) to preserve the integrity of the village and the village community; (2) to avoid fragmentation of holdings; (3) to implement the agnatic theory of the law of succession. (4) to reduce the chances of litigation and friction and to promote public order and domestic comfort; and (5) to promote private and public decency and convenience. It was held that these restrictions upon the right guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution were in the interest of the general public and the State. This view was affirmed in Ram Sarup v. Munshi, AIR 1963 SC 553.

(3.) In the meantime, however, there arose considerable spurt in thinking in favour of tenants and against landlords whose lands were being cultivated by occupancy tenants. Definite trends were discernible in public opinion regarding the removal of middlemen who reaped unearned interest from land and for the amelioration of the lot of ordinary tenants. The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952, the Pepsu Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act 1954, and the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955, were brought on the statute book. Laws regulating the village common lands were also passed in the erstwhile State of Punjab and Pepsu. A reference to some of the relevant provisions of these statutes will be made at a latter part of this judgment. At this stage, suffice it to notice that while examining the constitutional validity of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Atma Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1959 SC 519, considered some of the salient features of the earlier agrarian legislation on the subject and observed as under: