CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court

Substantive Rights Unaffected by Amendments: High Court Upholds Pre-emption Claim Under Unamended Punjab Pre-emption Act

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, presided over by Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin, upheld the pre-emption rights of a co-sharer in a land sale, underlining the non-retrospective applicability of the 1995 amendment to the Punjab Pre-emption Act.

The central legal issue revolved around the applicability of the 1995 amendment to the Punjab Pre-emption Act in a pre-emption case and whether it impacts substantive rights retrospectively.

The appellant, Habib Ahmed, contested a claim for pre-emption by Abdul Rehman, who alleged a preferential right as a co-sharer in a joint khewat (land record). The primary contention was whether Rehman held co-sharer status at the time of the land sale and the impact of the 1995 legislative amendment on this case.

Maintainability of Pre-emption Suit: The High Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Shyam Sunder & Anr. V/s Ram Kumar & Anr., emphasizing that amendments to laws do not affect substantive rights retrospectively unless explicitly stated. The Court observed, "where a repeal of provisions of an enactment is followed by fresh legislation...such legislation does not affect substantive or vested rights of the parties unless made retrospective either expressly or by necessary intendment."

Evidence and Status of Co-sharer: The Trial Court's finding, based on mutation records, established Abdul Rehman as a co-sharer. The High Court found no evidence to the contrary, confirming that the land had not been partitioned and that Rehman maintained his co-sharer status.

Decision: The appeal by Habib Ahmed was dismissed, with the Court finding no substantial question of law. The judgments and decrees of the lower courts were upheld, recognizing the co-sharer status of Abdul Rehman and the maintainability of the suit for pre-emption under the unamended Punjab Pre-emption Act.

 Date of Decision: March 14, 2024

Habib Ahmed vs. Abdul Rehman @ Dulla and Another

 

Latest Legal News