This article is written by Isha Garg. The article aims to provide a thorough analysis of the landmark judgement given by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Archna vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation Amroha (2015). It primarily focuses on centre-state relations with respect to legislative powers provided under the Constitution. 

Introduction

In patriarchal society, women have been historically marginalised in numerous aspects, including property rights. In this context,  women were often denied property rights, both on ancestral property and on the property of their fathers. Even after marriage, ‘stridhan’ (a woman’s personal property) was not considered her absolute right. However, the legislature, by enacting the Hindu Succession (Amendment)  Act of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act of 2005) amended the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ( hereinafter referred to as the HSA) and brought about a radical change in the position of women by promoting gender neutrality.  It gave equal coparcenary rights to women, the same as it did to sons. Additionally, it deleted Section 4(2) of the said Act, which had previously excluded tenancy rights in agricultural land from the purview of the HSA, 1956 and left these rights to be governed by state laws. Despite these changes, the legal framework regarding property rights for women remained complex and inconsistent, leading to various interpretations by different High Courts to establish a clear and definitive law.

The High Court in the case of Archna vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation Amroha (2015) clarified the property rights of women in respect of agricultural lands. In its landmark judgement, the High Court decided that in cases of inheritance regarding agricultural land, state law will prevail over the law made by Parliament.

Download Now

Details of the case 

  • Case Title: Archna vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Amroha (2015)
  • Case Type: Writ No. 64999 of 2014
  • Court: The High Court of Allahabad
  • Date of decision: 27.03.2015
  • Parties: 

Petitioner: Archna

Respondent: Deputy Director of Consolidation and others

  • Bench: Ram Surat Ram (Maurya), J.
  • Counsel: 

Petitioner: Shri Gyan Shankar Ojha and Manoj Srivastava.

Respondent: Mithilesh Kmar Mishra and Nitiya Prakash Tiwari.

Facts of the case 

On 08.12.2008, the petitioner, Archna, filed an objection under Section 9(2) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, for deleting the name of Veer Singh from the records in regard to the disputed land and substituting her name along with that of Uttam Singh, Bhanu Singh and Shashi Bhushan Singh. She stated that her grandfather, Hardeo Singh, died intestate, leaving behind ancestral property. After his death, the property was passed down to his sons, Khajan Singh and Uttam Singh and their sons. Later on, they jointly converted it into joint family property under Hindu law, which was administered by Uttam Singh, a Karta of the joint Hindu family, until 1989.

On 14.11.2005, Uttam Singh and Khajan Singh executed a sale deed in favour of Veer Singh. Based on the sale deed, Veer Singh’s name was recorded in the revenue records by the order dated 19.12.2005. She stated that, as per the amendment to Section 6 of the HSA, 1956, along with other coparceners, she became the owner of 1/4th share.

However, Veer Singh stated that the disputed land was agricultural land and sections of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950  (hereinafter referred to as the UP Zamindari Abolition Act) were applicable, not the law provided under HSA, 1956. Moreover, during the lifetime of her father, she had no rights to the disputed land.

The consolidation officer, after hearing the parties, rejected the petitioner’s objection on the ground that the HSA of 1956 did not apply to the agricultural land. Since the petitioner’s father, Uttam Singh, was still alive, she could not inherit the property. Additionally, the petitioner, being a married daughter, was not considered a successor under Section 171 of the U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951. Consequently, the objection was dismissed and an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 20/312) was filed with the Settlement Officer Consolidation, who upheld the previous decision by order dated 14.03.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision against these orders, which was also dismissed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 09.06.2014.

As a result, aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. She prayed for the direction to consolidation authorities to give the share to the petitioner at the time of the partition of the disputed land and declare the aforesaid sale deed executed in favour of Veer Singh as void.

Issues raised 

  • Whether the  Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, will take precedence in case of a conflict?
  • Whether there was any overlap between subjects listed in Entry 18 of List-II (state list) and Entry 5 of List-III (concurrent list)?
  • Whether the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was enacted under Article 253 of the Constitution of India and if it has an overriding effect?

Arguments of the parties

Petitioners 

The petitioner claimed that her grandfather, Hardeo Singh, left behind the disputed property, which was inherited by his sons, Uttam Singh and Khajan Singh, along with their descendants. Together, they constituted a joint Hindu family and Uttam Singh served as Karta until 1989. She argued that by virtue of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act of 2005, she became a coparcener along with her father and brothers. The Amendment Act of 2005 removed Section 4(2) and amended Section 6(1)(c) which established equal rights for daughters as for sons. Therefore, the provisions of HSA will also apply to agricultural lands. 

Furthermore, ‘succession’ is a subject that comes under Entry 5 of the concurrent list (List III) of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. By virtue of Article 246(2), both the Parliament and the State Legislature have authority to enact laws on this subject. However, in cases of conflict, parliamentary laws take precedence over state laws. Therefore, the provisions of HSA, 1956 (as amended), would prevail over Section 171 of the UP Zamindari Abolition Act as per Article 254 of the Constitution.

Section 171 of the UP Zamindari Abolition Act reflects gender inequality, which is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. It is void under Article 13 of the Constitution as it violates the rights of daughters by denying them equal inheritance rights to agricultural land. 

She further stated that Uttam Singh lacked the authority to carry out the sale deed dated 14.11.2005 in favour of Veer Singh, rendering the transaction void and transferring no property rights to the purchaser. With her status as coparcener under amended Section 6 of HSA, 1956, the petitioner’s objections to the sale deed were maintainable. Therefore, she stated that the orders issued by the consolidation officer were illegal and should be overturned.

Respondent  

Veer Singh, the respondent no. 7, asserted that respondents Uttam Singh and Khajan Singh were “bhumidhars with transferable rights” over the disputed land. Therefore, they executed the sale deed dated November 14, 2005, within their authority. On this basis, his name was recorded in the revenue records. He further stated that as the disputed land was agricultural land, provisions of the UP Zamindari Abolition Act were applicable to it.

Laws or concepts involved in this case

Centre-State relations

One of the essential features of federalism is the division of powers between the Union and the state government. The Constitution of India establishes this distribution of legislative powers in two ways:

  • Based on territorial jurisdiction
  • Based on the subject matter

Distribution with regard to subject matter is provided under Article 246 of the Constitution.

Article 246 of the Indian Constitution 

It delineates the division of legislative powers between union and state governments through three lists, the union list, the state list, and the concurrent list. These lists are provided under Schedule VII of the Constitution.  

The framework of Article 246 is outlined as follows:

Clause 1 provides that the Parliament has sole authority to make laws on the subjects mentioned in the Union List (List-I).

Clause 2 provides that, subject to the exclusive power of the Parliament, the state legislature has the power to make laws with respect to matters enumerated under the Concurrent List (List-III).

Clause 3 provides that, subject to clauses 1 and 2, the state has the exclusive power to make laws on the subjects mentioned in the State List (List -II).

Clause 4 provides that the Parliament has the authority to enact laws for any part of the Indian territory that is not covered by a state, even if that area is also covered by one of the subjects mentioned in the State List.

Article 248 of the Indian Constitution 

Article 248 is the residuary provision, which provides that the Parliament has sole authority to enact laws on any subject that is not covered by the Concurrent List or the State List. This is also stipulated in Entry 97 of the Seventh Schedule, which covers matters that are not enumerated in Lists II and III, including any tax not mentioned in any of the lists.

Article 254 of the Indian Constitution 

It addresses conflicts between laws made by the Parliament and laws made by the legislature of the states, particularly as it relates to the doctrine of repugnancy.

It provides that in case any law enacted by the state legislature is in conflict with the law made by the Parliament, the latter will have precedence over the former. The state law will be declared void to that extent. However,  if the repugnant law, that is, a state law, conflicts with a central law on the same subject, making it invalid to the extent that the inconsistency is passed by the state legislature, then the state can enforce it only after receiving the assent of the President.

Doctrine of Pith and Substance

The doctrine of pith and substance is a legal principle that is used in constitutional law to establish the true nature and extent of the law. Pith and substance mean the true nature of law.

Makers of the Constitution have determined the areas of law on which the state and central government can enact the law. This bifurcation of subjects has been provided under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. But sometimes, the subjects under List I and List II may overlap, and conflict may arise over whether one is encroaching upon the sphere of the other. To tackle this problem, Indian courts evolved a few doctrines, one of which includes the doctrine of pith and substance.

Under this doctrine, courts identify the main and important purpose of the law. Once the pith and substance are determined, the court determines whether the law is enacted by the authority that has the competence to enact it. If it does, the law is deemed to be valid.

The main reason behind this is to ensure that legislative authorities operate within constitutionally determined powers and prevent encroachment on subjects reserved for others.

In the landmark case of Prafulla Kumar Mukherjee vs. The Bank of Commerce (1947), the Bombay High Court held that a clear-cut distinction between the legislative powers of the centre and state government is not feasible,  they are bound to overlap. While applying the doctrine of pith and substance, courts are bound to consider the following:

  • The scope of the Act
  • The object of the Act
  • The effect of the Act as a whole.

Article 253 of the Indian Constitution 

Article 253 of the Constitution authorises the Parliament to enact laws for the whole or any part of the territory of India for implementing any treaty, agreement or convention that is entered into with another country or countries, or any decision made at an international conference or association. This Article ensures that the Parliament can implement these treaties or agreements in any part of the territory, regardless of the distribution of legislative powers under Article 246 of the Constitution.

Article 51 of the Constitution

Article 51 of the Constitution is part of the Directive Principles of State Policy. It discusses the promotion of international peace and security by the state. In particular, it urges the Indian government to:

  • Promote international peace and security.
  • Maintain honourable relations between nations.
  • Foster respect for international law and treaties.
  • Encourage the settlement of international disputes through arbitration.

U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950

This Act came into force on 26th January, 1951. The main object of this Act was to abolish the zamindari system, which involved intermediaries between farmers and the state. It aimed to remove these intermediaries, procure their rights, and reform land tenure laws. By enacting this law, the legislature intended to ensure that the land goes directly to the people who worked on it.

To achieve land reform, the act included provisions that guaranteed rights to the actual occupiers of land. Under the Act, Sections 9 and 123 granted absolute rights to those living on and using the land, while other sections outlined the rights of different types of landholders, such as transferable and non transferable bhumidars, asamis, and government lessees.

The law that provided that land should belong to the actual tiller also applied to inheritance. However, widows and daughters could inherit land, Section 172 removed this right if they married or remarried. This was based on the idea that after marriage, women usually moved to their husband’s home, making it impractical for them to cultivate land in two different places. 

Hindu Succession Act, 1956

This Act deals with the rules of inheritance in case a person dies intestate and the devolution of property among the heirs of the deceased. This Act contained several gender-biased provisions, particularly concerning the rights of women. Before the Hindu Succession Amendment Act of 2005, only male heirs had the right to inherit the property of the deceased. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 introduced equal coparcenary rights for women. It was a landmark step towards gender equality among Hindus regarding inheritance laws. This Act amended Sections 6, 30 and omitted Sections 4(2), 23, and  24. 

Section 6 of HSA

Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, deals with the transfer of interest in Hindu coparcenary property. Before the Amendment of 2005, daughters were not part of coparcenary property. Only male members of the family had coparcenary rights. However, after the amendment, daughters have been granted the status of coparceners of the family property. They have the same rights and liabilities as the son. Like the son, a daughter also becomes a coparcener in her own right from birth.

Section 4(2) of HSA

Section 4(2) acted as the saving clause. This section provided that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, would not apply to agricultural lands, meaning that the provisions of the HSA, 1956, would not affect the provisions of any other law that prevented the division of agricultural holdings, established land ownership ceilings or provided for the devolution of tenancy rights in such holdings. Thereby, the inheritance of agricultural lands was left under the purview of state tenurial laws. 

The Amendment Act of 2005 omitted this section, which means the HSA of 1956 would now apply to agricultural lands. Therefore, Section 4(1)(b) will prevail, and all the other agricultural holdings, fixation of ceilings or devolution of tenancy rights in respect of such holdings are now inconsistent with the 2005 Amendment Act. 

Section 9 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953

This section discusses the process of revising the records regarding rights during land consolidation. It requires the consolidation officer to issue a public notice inviting landholders to submit any objections or claims with respect to their land rights. After reviewing these submissions, the officer conducts an inquiry and modifies the land records, ensuring they accurately reflect ownership and rights, before proceeding with the consolidation. 

Relevant judgements referred to in the case

Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. vs. Birendra Bahadur Pandey and others (1984)

In Gramophone Co. of India Ltd. vs. Birendra Bahadur Pandey and others (1984), the Supreme Court ruled that nations are not required to align with the international community’s standards and that municipal law does not have to abide by the rules of international law. According to the comity of nations, rules established by municipal law may take into account international law without any need for explicit legislative endorsement. However, if both laws are in conflict with each other, then the sovereignty and integrity of the Republic will take precedence. It will not be governed by external rules unless expressly accepted by the legislature itself. The principle of incorporation also mentions that the rules and norms of international law become part of national law unless they are in contradiction to the laws made by Parliament. 

Moreover, national courts cannot adopt the principles of international law if the Parliament has rejected their incorporation into domestic law. National courts should necessarily interpret domestic law within their legislative limits.

State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and Ors. (2004)

In the State of West Bengal vs. Kesoram Industries Ltd. and Ors. (2004), the Apex Court  highlighted certain principles in regard to the legislative powers of the Union and the state governments mentioned under Lists I, II and III of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which are stated below:

  • The numerous entries provided in the three lists of the Seventh Schedule are merely fields of legislation and not powers. 
  • Even though the Constitution delineates the legislative powers of both the central and state governments, there are still chances of overlapping in certain areas, especially with matters enumerated in the concurrent list. If there is a conflict between List II (State List) on one side and Lists I and III (Union and Concurrent List) on the other, then the law enacted by the Union government will have precedence over the state law.
  • Since the entries listed in the Seventh Schedule simply remove topics for legislation, they should be interpreted liberally, reflecting their broad intent rather than a narrow, pedantic approach. The power to legislate on the principal matter also encompasses the power to address incidental and ancillary matters related to the subject.
  • When questioning the competence of the state legislature on the ground that it encroaches on matters reserved exclusively for the Parliament, the issue that has to be decided is whether the law relates to the matter listed in List I or III. If it relates to the said lists, then no further question needs to be decided, and the law enacted by Parliament will take precedence. In cases of overlapping subject matters provided in lists, the rule of pith and substance must be applied to examine which entry a law pertains to.
  • The doctrine of occupied field is relevant when there is an overlap between the Union and the State lists. In such instances, the doctrine of pith and substance is applied. If the contested legislation predominantly falls within the jurisdiction explicitly conferred upon the enacting legislature, the incidental authority of the other legislature must be disregarded. Under the Seventh Schedule, List I takes precedence over Lists II and III and List III takes precedence over List II.

State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raja Anand Brahma Shah (1967)  

In the case of the State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Raja Anand Brahma Shah (1967) , the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the UP Zamindari Abolition Act. This act is preserved under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, and its validity cannot be challenged under Article 31-A of the Constitution. 

S.P. Watel and others vs. the State of U.P. (1973)

In S.P. Watel and others vs. the State of U.P. (1973), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act is constitutionally valid and does not violate fundamental rights. Additionally, it is protected under the Ninth schedule of the Constitution.

Judgement of the case

The High Court of Allahabad held that agricultural land falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of the State Legislature and the Parliament has no authority to enact any law in this regard. Therefore, the Court found no merit in the writ petition and dismissed the writ petition.

Issue-wise judgement is discussed below for thorough perusal:

Whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 or the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act ,1951 will take precedence in case of conflict

In order to answer this issue, the High Court examined the provisions outlined in Chapter I of  Part XI of the Constitution, which pertain to the legislative relations between the centre and the state. The Court mentioned that Article 245 of the Constitution limits the territorial scope of Parliament’s and the state legislature’s legislative powers. Further, Article 246 divides various subjects between the Parliament and the state legislatures. The Court also reviewed the entries in the Seventh Schedule of the Government of India Act, 1935 and the Constitution of India.

It determined that Entry 7 of the Concurrent List (List-III) of the Government of India Act, 1935 included the expression “save as regards agricultural lands,”  from which it was clear that rights in or over land and land tenures were within the absolute authority of the State Legislature under the said Act. Correspondingly, Entry 5 of the Concurrent List (List-III) of the Constitution uses the expression “all matters regarding which parties in judicial proceedings were immediately before the commencement of this Constitution subject to their personal law.” This further mentioned that the rights in or over land and land tenures were within the absolute domain of the State Legislature under Entry 21 of the Provincial Legislative List (List-II) of the Government of India Act, 1935, corresponding to Entry 18 of the State List (List-II) of the Constitution. 

Therefore, the Legislature of the state has exclusive jurisdiction to enact laws in respect of rights in or over land and land tenures, under which the UP Zamindari Abolition Act was enacted. The phrase ‘rights in’ also includes inheritance and devolution of interest. Thus, it is comprehensive in nature. Thus, the UP Zamindari Abolition Act will prevail over the HSA of 1956.

Whether there was any overlap between subjects listed in Entry-18 of the List-II (State list) and Entry-5 of List -III of (Concurrent list)

As discussed above, an entry related to “rights in or over land tenures” is mentioned in Entry 18 of the State List (List-II). It also includes inheritance and the Court found that there is no overlapping of the subjects mentioned in Entry 18 of the State List and Entry 5 of the Concurrent List. As per Article 246(3) of the Constitution, the state legislature has exclusive power to enact laws in respect of rights in or over land and land tenure, including inheritance. 

Under Entry 5 of the Concurrent List (List-III), the phrase ‘succession’ has very limited application as provided under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Even if ‘succession’ falls under Entry 5 of the Concurrent List (List-III), the assent of the President has been obtained for U.P. Act No.1 ,1951. As per Article 254(2) of the Constitution, in this case, the law enacted by the State Legislature will take precedence over the law enacted by the Parliament. Therefore, in this context, the U.P. Act No.1 ,1951 will prevail over the HSA of 1956.

Whether the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 was enacted under Article 253 of the Constitution and if it has an overriding effect

It was argued before the High Court that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act of 2005 was enacted to meet the obligations set forth by the United Nations Organisation in order to suppress gender inequality and to comply with  Article 51(c) of the Constitution. Therefore, it will take precedence by virtue of Article 253 of the Constitution.

The Court found that the Parliament had not enacted the Amendment Act of 2005 in accordance with the declaration made before the United Nations Organisation and Article 51 (c). The Amendment  Act of 2005 intended to provide equal rights with the son only to Hindu women and did not extend such a right to women belonging to other religions living in the country. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Amendment Act of 2005 was not enacted in pursuit of the declaration and Article 253 of the Constitution was not applicable in this case.

Conclusion 

Numerous High Courts have attempted to harmonise the legislative powers of the centre and state with regard to the inheritance of agricultural land. A landmark judgement in this context was delivered by the High Court of Allahabad in the case of Archna vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation Amroha (2015). The Court in this case held that, generally, in cases of conflict, the law made by the Parliament will prevail over the state law. However, if, on the same subject matter, the state has obtained the assent of the President, then in that case, state law will take precedence. In this particular case, the U.P. government had secured the assent of the President regarding the UP Zamindari Abolition Act, giving it an overriding effect. Moreover, the Amendment Act of 2005, which grants daughters equal rights to coparcenary property under HSA, 1956, does not come under the purview of Article 253 of the Constitution. Thus, the HSA of 1956 will not override U.P. Act No. 1 ,1951. 

Hence, the Allahabad High Court dismissed Archna’s claim because the state has exclusive jurisdiction to enact laws regarding agricultural lands and she could not claim any rights under HSA, 1956. However, a definitive ruling from the Supreme Court is still awaited to uphold the rights of daughters in agricultural lands. 

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here