Agricultural land succession under special state law prevails over general Hindu succession rules; later amendments do not unsettle vested rights.

Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 was treated as governing succession to agricultural land under a State List field, so no repugnancy arose with the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 under Article 254, and the provision remained protected by Article 31B. The deletion of Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act operated prospectively and did not disturb succession that had already opened or vested rights that had accrued earlier. The discrimination challenge also failed because later developments in Hindu succession law did not displace the special regime for agricultural holdings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 was repugnant to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 under Article 254 of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether the deletion of Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 affected succession that had already opened before the amendment; (iii) Whether the challenge to Section 50(a) could succeed on grounds of discrimination and alleged inconsistency with later developments in Hindu succession law.

Issue (i): Whether Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 was repugnant to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 under Article 254 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Article 254 applies only where both enactments operate in the Concurrent List. The Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 was held to relate to agricultural land under Entry 18 of List II, whereas the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 is a general law of succession. Since the State enactment occupied a distinct field and was also protected by its inclusion in the Ninth Schedule, no repugnancy arose.

Conclusion: The challenge based on Article 254 failed and Section 50(a) was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the deletion of Section 4(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 affected succession that had already opened before the amendment.

Analysis: Succession opened when the original holder died, and the rights of the successors crystallized on that date. The deletion of Section 4(2) was held to operate prospectively and could not disturb rights that had already accrued. The omission was treated as incapable of affecting the prior operation of the provision or vested rights already created.

Conclusion: The amendment did not assist the appellants and had no retrospective effect on the succession in question.

Issue (iii): Whether the challenge to Section 50(a) could succeed on grounds of discrimination and alleged inconsistency with later developments in Hindu succession law.

Analysis: Once the statutory protection under Article 31B was recognized, the equality challenge could not be entertained. The later authorities concerning Hindu succession did not alter the position for agricultural land governed by the special State enactment, and the cited precedent concerning another State with no corresponding land-tenure legislation was inapplicable.

Conclusion: The grounds based on discrimination and later Hindu succession developments were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The State land-reform succession scheme for agricultural holdings was held to govern the dispute, and the appellant's constitutional and statutory challenges failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A State law governing agricultural land succession under a State List entry, especially when protected by Article 31B, is not displaced by the general Hindu succession law, and amendments to the general law do not retrospectively unsettle succession rights that had already accrued under the special law.

---