District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala 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