Supreme Court Upholds Section 22 Hindu Succession Act Applies to Inherited Agricultural Land

The Supreme Court of India, in Mahinder and Others v. Puran Singh (2026 INSC 698), has upheld the applicability of Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, to inherited agricultural land. The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, in its judgment delivered on July 14, 2026, held that Class I heirs under the Act possess a preferential right to purchase agricultural property proposed to be transferred by a co-heir to an outsider. The ruling settles a long-standing controversy over whether the preferential right of pre-emption under Section 22 extends to agricultural land, a question on which several High Courts had taken conflicting positions.

Facts of the Case

The dispute arose among the children of one Nanhu, who owned agricultural land in Karnal, Haryana. Upon Nanhu's death, the land devolved upon his legal heirs as Class I heirs under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. On December 28, 2011, defendant numbers 1 to 7, either directly or through their legal heirs, collectively sold their respective shares of the inherited agricultural land to a third party, Mrs. Poonam, without first offering the land to their sibling co-heir, the plaintiff Puran Singh.

Puran Singh filed a suit claiming that as a Class I heir, he was entitled to a preferential right to purchase the shares of his co-heirs under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act before they could be sold to an outsider. The trial court and the appellate court ruled in favour of Puran Singh. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Section 22 does not apply to agricultural land and that the provision was constitutionally suspect following the Constitution Bench's decision in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana, which struck down certain provisions of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, as violating the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Understanding Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act

Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, confers a preferential right upon heirs specified in Class I of the Schedule when an interest in any property of an intestate devolves upon two or more heirs. If any such heir proposes to transfer his interest in the property, the other heirs in that class have a preferential right to acquire that interest at a price agreed upon between the parties or, in the absence of agreement, at a price determined by the court on the basis of the market value of the property.

The provision is designed to keep inherited property within the family by giving co-heirs the first right of refusal before the property can be sold to a stranger. This principle is closely related to the broader framework of succession and inheritance law in India, which aims to balance the rights of individual heirs with the family's collective interest in ancestral property.

The Constitutional Challenge and the Court's Response

The appellants relied heavily on the Constitution Bench decision in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana (1986), which struck down Section 15(1)(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, on the ground that pre-emption based on consanguinity (blood relationship) violated the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The defendants argued that Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act similarly confers a right of pre-emption based on family relationships and should therefore suffer the same constitutional infirmity.

The Supreme Court rejected this argument, drawing a clear distinction between the two provisions. Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, writing the judgment, held that the right of pre-emption under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act is, in its pith and substance, an incident of succession and nothing more. Unlike the Punjab Pre-emption Act, which created a standalone right of pre-emption based on considerations such as blood relationship, co-ownership, and tenancy, Section 22 operates strictly within the framework of intestate succession and is limited to Class I heirs who have already acquired an interest in the property by operation of law.

The Court further held that Section 22 is a law governing succession enacted under Entry 5 of List III (Concurrent List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, and not an independent law of pre-emption. This distinction is significant because laws governing succession receive greater constitutional protection, and the classification of Class I heirs as the beneficiaries of the preferential right has a rational nexus with the objective of keeping inherited property within the immediate family. The Court's analysis is consistent with the approach taken in other property law disputes where the balance between individual rights and family interests must be carefully considered.

Application to Agricultural Land

A key issue in the case was whether Section 22 applies to agricultural land, given that 'agriculture' is a State subject under Entry 18 of List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule. The appellants argued that Parliament lacked legislative competence to enact a provision governing agricultural land under a succession law.

The Supreme Court, relying on the earlier decision in Babu Ram v. Santokh Singh, held that the preferential right under Section 22 extends to agricultural land. The Court reasoned that Section 22 is a law of succession, not a law relating to agriculture or pre-emption. The fact that the property in question happens to be agricultural does not alter the character of the legislation. Since Parliament has the power to legislate on succession under the Concurrent List, and since succession necessarily involves the devolution of all types of property, including agricultural land, Section 22 validly applies to such property.

This clarification is important for landowners and heirs across India, particularly in states like Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh, where agricultural land constitutes a significant portion of inherited family property. The ruling ensures that Class I heirs cannot be bypassed in favour of third-party buyers when inherited agricultural land is proposed to be sold.

Significance of the Ruling

The Supreme Court's decision in Mahinder v. Puran Singh resolves a significant legal uncertainty that had persisted across various High Courts. By affirming that Section 22 applies to agricultural land and distinguishing it from the pre-emption rights struck down in Atam Prakash, the Court has provided clarity to litigants, lawyers, and lower courts dealing with succession disputes involving agricultural property. The judgment also reinforces Parliament's legislative competence over succession matters, even when the property involved falls within a subject otherwise reserved to the States.

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court in Mahinder v. Puran Singh (2026 INSC 698) held that Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applies to inherited agricultural land.

Class I heirs possess a preferential right to purchase inherited property proposed to be sold by a co-heir to a third party.

The Court distinguished Section 22 from the Punjab Pre-emption Act provisions struck down in Atam Prakash v. State of Haryana.

Section 22 was characterised as an incident of succession, not an independent law of pre-emption, grounding Parliament's competence under Entry 5 of the Concurrent List.

The ruling resolves conflicting High Court views on whether Section 22 extends to agricultural property.

The decision is particularly relevant for succession disputes involving agricultural land in states such as Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh.