UP Amendment to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act Becomes Inoperative Following 2003 Parliamentary Amendment : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court, in Naeem Bano Alias Gaindo v. Mohammad Rahees, held that when Parliament amends a law on a Concurrent List subject, any earlier State amendment to the same provision becomes inoperative. Consequently, the Uttar Pradesh (UP) amendment to Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which provided a 30-day notice period for lease termination, was overridden by the Parliamentary amendment in 2003, which reduced the notice period to 15 days.
The Court clarified that the Transfer of Property Act falls under Entry 6 of List III of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution and invoked Article 254, which states that in cases of conflict, Parliamentary law prevails over State law. It emphasized that the UP amendment, despite Presidential assent, was impliedly repealed due to inconsistency with the 2003 amendment by Parliament.
The bench, comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice NK Singh, reaffirmed the principle of Parliamentary supremacy under Article 254(2). The matter was remitted to the Allahabad High Court for adjudication on merits, applying the Parliamentary amendment to Section 106.