Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, Sections 3(1) (2) and (3), 8, 15 and 16 – Punjab Alienation of Land Act, 1900, Section 2(3) – General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 3(26) – Suit for possession by pre-emption by tenant –Suit decreed – Concurrent findings by Courts below –Appellants submitted that in view of the notification 08.10.1985, issued by the State in exercise of powers under section 8(2) of the 1913 Act, the suit filed by the respondents deserved to be dismissed as the right of pre-emption did not exist for sale of land falling in the areas of any municipality in Haryana – Right of the respondents/tenants in the property flows from Section 16 of the 1913 Act as the respondents were tenants in the property from the year 1949 onwards where the rolling mill had been set up – Property in dispute on which right of pre-emption was sought to be exercised by the respondents was an urban immovable property – Held that Section 8(2) of the1913 Act uses two terms independently, clearly suggests that the land and the immovable property have different meanings – It is evident even from the language of Section 15 of the 1913Act, which also provides right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property – ‘Village immovable property’ has been defined to mean immovable property within the limits of a village other than the agricultural land – From the aforesaid provisions of the 1913 Act, if read Scheme of the Act, it is abundantly clear that the land and the immovable property are two different terms – The immovable property is more than the land on which certain construction has been made – Guidance can also be taken from the definition of immovable property, as provided in Section 3(26) of the1897 Act, which includes land, means something more than the land – As the notification dated 08.10.1985 limits its application for taking away the right of pre-emption only with reference to sale of land falling in the areas of any municipality, the same will not come to the rescue of the appellants – In the case in hand, admittedly it is sale of immovable property, which is more than the land as a rolling mill had already been set upon the land, which was in occupation of the respondents as tenants – Appeal liable to be dismissed. (Para 15, 17 and 19)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 79 SC
[JT 2024 (2) SC 278 = 2024 INSC 86]
Jagmohan And Another Vs. Badri Nath And Others
APPEAL NO. 1753 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.18612 of 2015)-Decided on 06-02-2024.
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2024-STPLWeb-79-SC.pdf
