Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary

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

 

Similar News