Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies to agricultural land inherited by Class I heirs and confers upon co-heirs a statutory preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to be transferred by another heir. The provision is an incident of intestate succession enacted under Entry 5 of List III of the Seventh Schedule and is constitutionally distinct from Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The Constitution Bench decision in Atam Prakash does not invalidate or dilute Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. Further, where a co-heir asserts the preferential right before completion of the transfer, subsequent execution of the sale deed does not defeat that right nor require an independent challenge to the conveyance. 2026 INSC 698

advocatemmmohan

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 22 – Preferential Right of Pre-emption – Agricultural Land – Constitution of India – Seventh Schedule, List III Entry 5; List II Entries 14 & 18 – Whether Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act applies to agricultural land inherited by Class I heirs, and whether the provision is constitutionally valid? – Held, Yes.

The plaintiff and the defendants, being Class I heirs of their deceased father, inherited agricultural land. Certain co-heirs proposed to alienate their respective shares to a third party. Before execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff invoked Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, claiming the preferential right to acquire the shares proposed to be transferred. The Trial Court dismissed the suit by applying the Constitution Bench decision in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, holding that Section 22 was analogous to Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The First Appellate Court reversed the decree relying upon Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh, and the High Court affirmed the same. Whether Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act is applicable to agricultural land and whether the Constitution Bench decision in Atam Prakash renders Section 22 unconstitutional or inapplicable? – Held, Yes; No.

The Supreme Court held that Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act applies equally to agricultural land inherited by Class I heirs. The Court clarified that Atam Prakash merely invalidated Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act because the classification of pre-emptors based upon consanguinity violated Article 14. It did not declare the concept of pre-emption itself unconstitutional, nor did it examine the constitutional validity of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. Section 22 is fundamentally different in character, being a succession-based statutory preference confined exclusively to Class I heirs inheriting property from the same intestate. It is neither a free-standing right of pre-emption nor comparable to the broad pre-emption rights created under the Punjab Act. The Court reaffirmed the decision in Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh, holding that Section 22 derives legislative competence from Entry 5 of List III (intestacy and succession), which expressly empowers Parliament to legislate regarding succession without excluding agricultural land. The provision merely imposes a succession-related qualification upon an heir proposing to transfer inherited property and is not legislation relating to transfer of agricultural land under Entry 18 of List II. Since the plaintiff had asserted the statutory right before execution of the sale deed, no separate challenge to the subsequent conveyance was necessary. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applies to agricultural land inherited by Class I heirs and confers upon co-heirs a statutory preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to be transferred by another heir. The provision is an incident of intestate succession enacted under Entry 5 of List III of the Seventh Schedule and is constitutionally distinct from Section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. The Constitution Bench decision in Atam Prakash does not invalidate or dilute Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act. Further, where a co-heir asserts the preferential right before completion of the transfer, subsequent execution of the sale deed does not defeat that right nor require an independent challenge to the conveyance.  2026 INSC 698