HC Reiterates: Parliament’s legislation takes precedence over the state in case of conflicting law u/A 254(1), Read Judgment

 

The Jharkhand High Court has ruled that according to Article 254(1) of the Constitution, in case of conflicting laws between a State Legislature and Parliament on concurrent list matters, Parliament's legislation takes precedence and if a State Law receives Presidential assent, it prevails only within that state, without implying extraterritorial application of amendments made by the State Legislature.

Brief Facts:

In this case, the petitioners bought land from Ganga Prasad Bhagat, the husband of defendant number 1. However, the legal heirs of the seller later contested the execution of the sale deed, claiming that Ganga Prasad was not in good health, the deeds were not executed voluntarily, and no consideration was paid. Both the trial court and the initial appellate court ruled in favour of the defendants, declaring the sale deed void from the beginning. The petitioners have filed this second appeal against the judgments of both the trial and initial appellate courts.

­Contentions of the Petitioner:

The learned counsel for the appellants, challenging the concurrent findings of the trial court and the First Appellate Court, has argued that both lower courts have misinterpreted Article 254 of the Constitution of India in the context of the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908. He contends that at the time of presenting the sale deed to the Registrar Assurance in Kolkata for registration, he followed the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, and not the amendment of the State Legislature.

He further asserts that it is a well-established legal principle that any amendment made by a State Legislature regarding a subject falling under the concurrent list of the Constitution of India cannot bind the provisions of the Central Act. It was also submitted that the lower courts have specifically found that the sale deeds were not tainted by fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation, or any other grounds that would make the transactions void or voidable.

 

He also argues that merely because the sale deeds were executed properly, involved valuable consideration, were presented before the Sub-Registrar in Dhanbad, and had the required stamp duty as per the norms of the State Government of Bihar, they cannot be deemed void ab initio or subject to cancellation.­

Contentions of the Respondent:

The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the consistent findings of facts and laws in the lower courts should not be easily disturbed. It is stressed that both sale deeds executed by the original plaintiff have been declared void, and cancelled, and the possession of the plaintiffs/respondents has been affirmed. Additionally, both lower courts have granted a permanent injunction. The argument further asserts that the registration of sale deeds at Registrar Assurance, Kolkata, for property in Ranchi/Bihar, following the amendment in the Indian Registration Act by the Bihar (Amendment) Act of 1991, is deemed void under the provisions of section 28 and 30 of the Registration Act.

He further contended that, as per the Indian Registration Act of 1908, documents affecting immovable property must be registered within the jurisdiction of the sub-registrar where the property is located. Moreover, Section 30 of the same Act permits any registrar to register documents that could be registered by a subordinate sub-registrar. The contention is that, due to the Bihar (Amendment) Act of 1991, Section 30(2) of the parent Central Act was deleted with the President's approval. Consequently, after the amendment, it is asserted that no sale deed for property in Bihar can be executed in any presidency town or in Delhi.

Observations of the Court:

The Hon’ble Court found it necessary to discuss relevant sections of the Indian Registration Act and the Bihar (Amendment) Act, 1991 regarding the sale deed executed on September 16, 1996, and registered on September 17, 1996, in Kolkata.

Due to the Bihar (Amendment) Act, 1991, subsection 2 of section 30 of the Registration Act, 1908, was omitted. The main issue was whether the Registration Act, of 1908, would prevail over the Bihar (Amendment) Act, of 1991, and this was to be resolved through Article 254 of the Constitution of India. Both the Parliament and the State legislature have the power to legislate on the subject under Entry 6 of the concurrent list.

Citing Gati Cargo Management Service vs. SBL Industries Ltd, the court held that the Registration Act, 1908, as amended by the Bihar (Amendment) Act, 1991, would prevail over the pre-constitutional legislation in Bihar. However, the court clarified that the amendment does not have extraterritorial application. The court emphasized that the words "prevail in that State" in Article 254(2) restrict the amendment's applicability to Bihar by referring to Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Anr. that supported this legal principle.

The Hon’ble Court noted that both lower courts erred in interpreting the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, in light of the Bihar (Amendment) Act, 1991, under Article 254 of the Constitution of India. The court declared the sale deeds void ab initio, emphasizing that the lower courts' findings did not indicate any fraud, misrepresentation, undue influence, coercion, or any other reason rendering the transactions void or voidable under the law. Deeming the sale deeds void solely because they were registered by the Registrar's Assurance office in Kolkata was deemed unjustifiable under the law. Therefore, the approach of the lower courts regarding the main issue failed to meet constitutional requirements and exhibited perversity.

The decision of the Court:

In this case, considering all the observations made and the overall context of this case, the court allowed the second appeal and set aside the judgements and decree of both the trial court and the first appellate court.

Case Title: Prabhas Kumar Shah vs Anupama Jaiswal

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava

Case No.:  Second Appeal No.231 of 2016

Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambastha

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. A.K Sahani, Mr. Vikesh Kumar, Mr. Ajit Kumar

  (With input from news agency language)
 If you like this story, share it with a friend!