YUSUF ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant claimed right of pre -emption on the ground that he is the adjoining raiyat but his claim was rejected by the original authority, revisional authority and also by the Member Board of Revenue by recording finding of fact. A specific finding was given by a Board of Revenue that the appellant is not the adjoining raiyat though, according to the appellant, he is the adjoining raiyat in the eastern side.

(2.) SO far as the right of pre -emption is concerned, the matter fell for consideration before constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Bhau Ram v. Baij Nath reported in : AIR1962SC1476 . In the said case, the Supreme Court held as follows: xxxx xxxx xxxx xxx...But the Constitution now prohibits discrimination against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them under Article 15 and guarantees a right to every citizen to acquire, hold and dispose of property, subject only to restrictions which may be reasonable and in the interests of the general public. Though therefore the ostensible reason for pre -emption may be vicinage, the real reason behind the law was to prevent a stranger from acquiring property in any area which had been populated by a particular fraternity or class of people. In effect, therefore, the law of pre -emption based on vicinage was really meant to prevent strangers i.e. people belonging to different religion, race or caste, from acquiring property. Such division of society now into groups and exclusion of strangers from any locality cannot be considered reasonable, and the main reason therefore which sustained the law of pre -emption based on vicinage in previous times can have no force now and the law must be held to impose an unreasonable restriction on the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property as now guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f), for it is impossible to see such restrictions as reasonable and in the interests of the general public in the state of society in the present day. There is no way of severing the application of the law so far as it relates to agricultural holdings from its application to urban or house property and therefore the entire provision as to vicinage must fall, even if something could be said in its favour with respect to agricultural holdings on the ground of consolidation. We are therefore of opinion that the second clause of Section 10 imposes an unreasonable restriction on the right to acquire, hold or dispose of property guaranteed under Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and must be struck down. So far as the proviso is concerned it applies both to the first and the second clauses and it will survive for the purposes of the first clause only, which is not in dispute before us.,