The Supreme Court has held that the preferential right granted to Class I heirs under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 extends to inherited agricultural land. Rejecting a challenge to the provision, the Court clarified that the right is an incident of succession and not a standalone right of pre-emption over land transfers.The Supreme Court has ruled that Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies to inherited agricultural land, reaffirming that Class I heirs enjoy a preferential right to purchase the share of another co-heir before it is transferred to a third party.A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh dismissed an appeal filed by several siblings who had challenged the applicability of Section 22 to agricultural property. The Court held that the provision forms part of the law of succession and is therefore fully applicable where agricultural land devolves upon Class I heirs through intestate succession.BackgroundThe dispute arose after the children of one Nanhu inherited agricultural land as Class I heirs. Seven of the siblings collectively sold their shares to a third party through a sale deed executed in December 2011. Before the sale was completed, another sibling filed proceedings under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, claiming a preferential right to acquire the shares proposed to be sold.The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that Section 22 could not be enforced because the Constitution Bench judgment in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana had declared Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act unconstitutional and that Section 22 was pari materia with the Punjab provision.However, the First Appellate Court reversed that finding after relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh, which had specifically held that Section 22 applies even to agricultural land. The Punjab and Haryana High Court affirmed that view, following which the unsuccessful defendants approached the Supreme Court.The principal issue before the Court was whether the preferential right created under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act extends to agricultural land inherited by Class I heirs.The appellants argued that Parliament lacked legislative competence to enact such a provision because matters relating to agricultural land fall within the legislative domain of the States. They further argued that Babu Ram had overlooked the relevant constitutional entries governing legislative competence and should therefore be reconsidered.The Supreme Court rejected these arguments and held that Babu Ram correctly interpreted Section 22 and continues to lay down the law. The Court explained that Section 22 creates a limited preferential right only among Class I heirs who inherit property through intestate succession. It is not a general right of pre-emption applicable to all agricultural land transactions.The Bench observed that Parliament consciously introduced this qualification while conferring succession rights under the Hindu Succession Act. “When Parliament thought of conferring the rights of succession in respect of various properties including agricultural holdings, it put a qualification on the right to transfer to an outsider and gave preferential rights to the other heirs with a designed object.”The Court noted that this legislative design seeks to preserve inherited family property, as far as possible, within the family by giving co-heirs the first opportunity to acquire the share proposed to be transferred.A substantial part of the arguments centred around the Constitution Bench decision in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, which had struck down Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act as unconstitutional. The appellants argued that the same reasoning should invalidate Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. The Supreme Court firmly rejected this contention.The Bench explained that Atam Prakash dealt with a completely different statutory framework. Section 15 of the Punjab Act conferred pre-emption rights upon a broad category of relatives and even persons such as tenants, based largely on blood relationship and customary considerations. By contrast, Section 22 applies only to Class I heirs who have inherited property from the same intestate.The Court observed that the constitutional infirmity identified in Atam Prakash related to the arbitrary classification of beneficiaries under the Punjab legislation and not to the concept of pre-emption itself.“To impute a finding that the concept of pre-emption itself has been held to be unconstitutional would be nothing but a wholly incorrect reading” of Atam Prakash, the Court observed.The Bench cautioned that extending observations made in one constitutional challenge to invalidate an entirely different statutory provision, whose validity was never under consideration, would amount to an impermissible expansion of judicial precedent.The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that Parliament lacked legislative competence to enact Section 22 insofar as it concerns agricultural land. Writing a separate but concurring opinion, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh explained that the right created under Section 22 is, in pith and substance, an incident of succession and not a law governing transfer of agricultural land.The Court observed that the provision comes into operation only when Class I heirs inherit property under the Hindu Succession Act. It neither regulates ordinary transfers of land nor creates a free-standing right of pre-emption.“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.”The Bench pointed out that Entry 5 of the Concurrent List empowers Parliament to legislate on intestacy and succession. Unlike the Government of India Act, 1935, the Constitution deliberately omitted any exclusion relating to agricultural land from this entry. Therefore, Parliament’s competence to legislate on succession, including succession to agricultural land, remained complete.The Court further clarified that although Section 22 is triggered when an heir proposes to transfer inherited property, its dominant character remains one of succession.“The trigger for the exercise of a right is not the same as the nature and source of that right,” the Court observed while applying the doctrine of pith and substance.Since no State legislation governing succession to the disputed property had been brought to the Court’s notice, there was also no occasion to examine any issue of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution.The Court also rejected the appellants’ submission that the respondent ought to have separately challenged the sale deed executed in favour of the purchaser. It noted that the proceedings under Section 22 had been instituted on 08.12.2011, well before the sale deed was executed on 28.12.2011.The Bench reiterated that a right of pre-emption is a right over a proposed transfer rather than a completed transaction.Referring to settled principles governing pre-emption, the Court observed that such a right must ordinarily be asserted before the transfer is completed. Since the respondent had already approached the competent court before execution of the sale deed, there was no legal necessity for him to institute fresh proceedings challenging the subsequent sale.“The plaintiff had taken the steps required by law,” the Court observed, adding that the sale was executed despite the already pending assertion of the respondent’s statutory preferential right.Affirming the judgments of the First Appellate Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the Supreme Court held that Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act continues to apply to inherited agricultural land and that the decision in Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh correctly states the law.The Court concluded that the constitutional challenge founded on Atam Prakash was misconceived, as the two provisions operate in entirely different fields and serve different legislative purposes. It also held that Parliament possessed the legislative competence to enact Section 22 because the provision is fundamentally one governing succession among Class I heirs.Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and the respondent’s preferential right under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act was upheld.CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.29289 of 2025)MAHINDER & ORS. VERSUS PURAN SINGHDate of Decision: 14.07.2026Appearance:For Petitioner(s): Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jitesh Malik, Adv. Mr. Jatin Hooda, Adv. Mr. K Sree Krishna, Adv. Mr. Yogendra Kumar Verma, Adv. Dr. Jyoti Verma, Adv. Mr. Rajan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AORFor Respondent(s): Mr. C Kranthi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. Shafik Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Naman Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. S Subramaniam, Adv. Ms. Abida, Adv. Mr. Ayush Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rashid N. Azam, AOR Mr. Neetesh, Adv. (A.C.)(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)
