Section 22 Hindu Succession Act Applies To Agricultural Land; Right Of Pre-Emption Is An Incident Of Succession: Supreme Court

"The right of pre-emption as conferred under Section 22 of the HSA is, in its pith and substance, an incident of succession and nothing more. It does not exist in isolation but is intrinsically associated with succession amongst Hindus." Supreme Court, in a significant judgment dated July 14, 2026, has clarified that the preferential right of heirs to acquire property under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (HSA), extends to agricultural land.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that this right is not a mere "transfer simpliciter" but a qualification on the right to transfer inherited property, aimed at keeping family property within the family.

The dispute arose between siblings who inherited agricultural land from their father, Nanhu. Several siblings sold their shares collectively to a third party, which was challenged by the plaintiff-respondent under Section 22 of the HSA. While the Civil Court dismissed the suit by treating the provision as unconstitutional based on older precedents, the First Appellate Court and the High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.

The primary question before the court was whether Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applies to agricultural land or is restricted to other forms of immovable property. The court was also called upon to determine if the Parliament possessed the legislative competence to enact such a provision affecting agricultural land and whether existing precedents like Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh remained good law.

Preferential Right Is An Integral Part Of Succession

The Court emphasised that the right of pre-emption under Section 22 of the HSA is not a standalone right but is deeply rooted in the principles of intestate succession. Justice Sanjay Karol noted that when Parliament conferred succession rights, it simultaneously placed a qualification on those rights to ensure that outsiders are not easily planted into family properties. This right is triggered by a proposed transfer but its source remains the law of succession.

Court Explains Nature Of Pre-emption Under HSA

The bench observed that the right of pre-emption is a "weak right" that can be defeated by legitimate methods, yet it must be enforced as long as it exists in the statute book. The judgment clarified that Section 22 provides for the intervention of the Court to enable a co-heir to seek enforcement through general civil procedures. It was further noted that this right must be asserted prior to the completion of a transaction that would offend the right.

"The preferential right given to an heir of a Hindu under Section 22 of the Act is applicable even if the property in question is an agricultural land."

Distinction Between HSA And Punjab Pre-emption Act

The Court rejected the argument that Section 22 of the HSA was pari materia with Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, which was struck down in the Atam Prakash case. It was held that while the Punjab Act was based on a "feudal" theory of consanguinity and included various relatives and tenants, Section 22 of the HSA is strictly confined to Class-I heirs who inherit together. Therefore, the unconstitutionality of the Punjab Act does not affect the validity of the HSA.

Constitutional Competence Of Parliament

In a concurring opinion, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh addressed the challenge to Parliament's legislative competence. The Court noted that Entry 5 of List III (Concurrent List) covers "intestacy and succession" without any exclusion of agricultural land. The bench pointed out that while the Government of India Act, 1935, had excluded agricultural land from this entry, the framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted that exclusion to give Parliament and States full competence.

Doctrine Of Pith And Substance Applied

Applying the doctrine of pith and substance, the Court held that Section 22 is essentially a succession provision falling under Entry 5 of List III. Even if it has an incidental connection with the transfer of agricultural land, which falls under Entry 18 of List II, its dominant character as a succession-based qualification remains untouched. The Court found that there was no conflict with State laws that would trigger questions of repugnancy under Article 254.

"The trigger for the exercise of a right is not the same as the nature and source of that right. The true character of Section 22 of the HSA is that of a succession provision."

Final Directions and Dismissal

The Supreme Court concluded that the earlier decision in Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh correctly settled the law and required no reconsideration by a larger bench. The Court also dismissed the technical objection that the sale deed was not specifically challenged, noting that the petition under Section 22 was filed before the sale was executed, thus conforming to the principle that pre-emption applies to what is "about to happen."

Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the High Court and the First Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal. The ruling solidifies the right of Hindu co-heirs to claim a preference in the purchase of inherited agricultural land, ensuring that the legislative intent of maintaining family integrity in property holdings is upheld across all types of immovable property.

Date of Decision: July 14, 2026