Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana
Supreme Court of India, 27 February 1986, 5 judges, 1986 AIR 859; 1986 SCR (1) 399; 1986 SCC (2) 249
The right of pre-emption based on consanguinity in Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, as applicable in Haryana, violates Article 14; the clauses favouring co-sharers and tenants were upheld.
Facts
Several thousand writ petitions under Article 32 challenged Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, which continued in force in Haryana after Punjab repealed it. As amended in 1960, Section 15 vested a right of pre-emption over agricultural land and village immovable property in specified kin of the vendor (sons, daughters, grandsons, brothers, brothers' sons, fathers' brothers and their sons), and also in co-sharers and tenants. A Constitution Bench in Ram Sarup v. Munshi had upheld Section 15(1)(a) against Article 19(1)(f). The petitioners now challenged the provision under Articles 14 and 15. The State defended the classification as preserving the village community, avoiding fragmentation, implementing the agnatic theory of succession, promoting decency, helping tenants and reducing litigation.
Questions before the Court
- Whether the right of pre-emption based on consanguinity in Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 is a reasonable classification under Article 14.
- Whether the rights of pre-emption vested in co-sharers and tenants are valid.
- How the Preamble and Directive Principles bear on testing a statute against Article 14.
What the Court held
- In testing a statute against the Constitution, the Preamble is the guiding light and the Directive Principles the book of interpretation. A classification under Article 14 must be consistent with the socialist goals of the Preamble and Part IV; one not in tune with the Constitution is per se unreasonable.
- Pre-emption based on consanguinity is feudal in origin and character and inconsistent with the constitutional scheme. Whatever justification existed in 1960, the classification of kinsfolk cannot be considered reasonable today; the integrity of village and family and the agnatic theory no longer support it.
- The list of kinsfolk is intrinsically defective and self-contradictory, excluding relatives of the same degree because they are women or related through women. Clauses First, Secondly and Thirdly of Section 15(1)(a), (b) and (c) and the whole of Section 15(2) were declared ultra vires.
- The rights vested in co-sharers and tenants are reasonable; the clauses giving them pre-emption do not infringe Article 14 or 15. Pending suits and appeals are to be decided in accordance with the declaration, but decrees that have become final bind the parties.
Why it matters
The judgment strikes down the right of pre-emption based on kinship under the Punjab Pre-emption Act as applied in Haryana, while upholding pre-emption by co-sharers and tenants. It holds that a classification once justified may cease to be reasonable in changed conditions, and that Article 14 classifications are to be tested in the light of the Preamble's socialist goal and the Directive Principles.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Whatever article of the Constitution it is that we seek to interpret, whatever statute it is whose constitutional validity is sought to be questioned, we must strive to give such an interpretation as will promote the march and progress towards a Socialistic Democratic State. For example, when we consider the question whether a statute offends Article 14 of the Constitution we must also consider whether a classification that the legislature may have made is consistent with the socialist goals set out in the Preamble and the Directive Principles enumerated in Part IV of the Constitution. A classification which is not in tune with the Constitution is per se unreasonable and cannot be permitted.”
“It is a well-known characteristic of feudalism that the control of the most important productive resource, land, should continue in the hands of the same social and family group. The right of pre-emption based on consanguinity is a consequence flowing out of this characteristic. It is entirely inconsistent with our Constitutional scheme. Since the Forty-Second Amendment, India is a socialist republic in which feudalism can obviously have no place and must go.”
“We do not think that the classification can be considered reasonable in the circumstances prevailing today whatever Justification there might have been for the classification in 1960 when the legislature amended s.15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. Apart from the courts characterising the right as 'archaic', 'feudal', 'piratical' 'outmoded' and so on, the Punjab legislature recognised the incongruity of the right in modern times and repealed it in 1972.”
“There can be no doubt that tenants form a distinct class by themselves and the right of pre-emption granted in their favour is reasonable and in the public interest. We are, therefore, of the view that clause 'fourthly' of s.15(1)(a), clauses 'fourthly and fifthly' of s.15(1)(b) and clause 'fourthly' of s. 15(1) (c) are valid and do not infringe either Art. 14 or 15 of the Constitution.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 15, Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 (as applicable in Haryana)
- Article 14, Constitution
- Article 15, Constitution
Case and bench
- Parties
- Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana
- Case
- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13227 of 1984 etc. (under Article 32 of the Constitution)
- Decided
- 27 February 1986
- Bench
- Bhagwati, P.N. (CJ), Reddy, O. Chinnappa, Misra, R.B., Khalid, V., Oza, G.L.
- Opinions
- Unanimous. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by O. Chinnappa Reddy, J.
Questions on this case
From free Law Maker papers. Try each one before you open the answer.
Question 1, Legal Current Affairs: July 2026
In Mahinder v. Puran Singh, decided on 14 July 2026, the Supreme Court held that the preferential right of Class I heirs under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956:
- A. does not extend to agricultural land, which lies only in the State legislative field
- B. applies to agricultural land only where the State has adopted it by a resolution
- C. applies even where the inherited property is agricultural land
- D. is void, for the reasons that struck down Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act
Show the answer
C. applies even where the inherited property is agricultural land
Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ. (2026 INSC 698) followed Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh (2019) and dismissed the appeal of the original defendants: Section 22 is a succession provision under Entry 5 of List III and applies to agricultural land. Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana (1986), on the Punjab Act, did not govern it.
Question 2, Legal Current Affairs: July 2026
Consider the following statements about Mahinder v. Puran Singh (14 July 2026): 1. The Court referred Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh (2019) to a larger Bench for reconsideration. 2. The Court traced Parliament's competence to enact Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to Entry 5 of List III (wills, intestacy and succession), which does not exclude agricultural land. 3. The Court held that Section 22 is invalid in its application to agricultural land because Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana (1986) struck down Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- A. 1 and 2 only
- B. 2 and 3 only
- C. 1 only
- D. 2 only
Show the answer
D. 2 only
Only statement 2 is correct. The Court said that no occasion arose to refer Babu Ram to a larger Bench, and it treated Atam Prakash as inapplicable because Section 22 is a succession-based right confined to Class I heirs, unlike the wider pre-emption right under the Punjab Act. The concurring opinion noted that Entry 5 of List III, unlike the 1935 entry, does not exclude agricultural land.