Consanguinity-based pre-emption preference struck down as an unreasonable and discriminatory classification under equality principles.

A statutory preference in pre-emption for the vendor's kinsfolk, based on consanguinity and the agnatic theory of succession, was held to be an unreasonable classification. The Court found the traditional justifications of village integrity, family unity, and male-line succession had lost constitutional relevance, and that the statutory preference was internally inconsistent and discriminatory between relatives through male and female lines. The impugned clauses of section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, insofar as they created this preference, were held unconstitutional and invalid for violating Articles 14 and 15.

---

---

Issues: Whether the classification made in section 15 of the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913 in favour of kinsfolk of the vendor, on the basis of consanguinity and the agnatic theory of succession, was a reasonable classification consistent with Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The right of pre-emption based on consanguinity was held to be a feudal and antiquated incident of property law. The earlier justification for such a right, namely preservation of village integrity, family unity, and the agnatic theory of succession, was found to have lost relevance in modern constitutional conditions. The Court found the statutory list of preferred relatives internally inconsistent and discriminatory in its treatment of relatives through male and female lines, and concluded that there was no rational basis for preferring such kinsfolk. The classification was therefore inconsistent with the constitutional commitment to equality and the socialist orientation of the Constitution.

Conclusion: The impugned clauses of section 15, insofar as they created a preference based on consanguinity, were held unconstitutional and invalid under Articles 14 and 15.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory classification favouring kinsfolk for pre-emption, when unsupported by a rational and constitutionally relevant basis, is an unreasonable classification and is liable to be struck down as violating equality.

---