Constitutional Validity
Before the 44thAmendment of the Constitution of India, there existed Article19(1)(f) in the constitution.
Article19(1)(f) of the constitution of India gave the citizens of India, “the right to acquire, hold and
dispose of property” and Article 19(5) permitted a law toimpose „reasonable restrictions‟ on exercise of
this  “either in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled
Tribe”.
 Article 13(1) declared that all laws in force in the territory of India immediately before the
commencement of the constitution and inconsistent with the provisions of the constitution relating to the
fundamental rights of the people shall to the extent of such inconsistency be void. Article 13(2) forbids
the State from making any law which takes away, or a bridges the fundamental rights and declares that
any law made in contravention of this clause shall, to the extent of the contravention, be void. Therefore,
the validity of the law of pre-emption, whether it has its roots in Islamic Law or custom or statute was to
depend on whether it amounted to reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public on
the citizen‟s right
to acquire, hold and dispose of property [Article 19(1)(f)].Though the pre-emptory right of a co-sharer in
property is justified as it prevents disintegration of the Muslim family property due to its peculiar laws
of inheritance and inconvenience which may result to families from the introduction of a disagreeable
stranger as a coparcener, the right of a neighbor to pre-empt has been held to be unreasonable as it affords
opportunity to obtain his neighbours property at a price far below its value by bargaining or hagglingand
renders a stranger aware of the risk unwilling to purchase it except for aprice which the property ought to
fetch.

 
In Sant Ram and Ors. v. Labh Singh and Anr.17, Srivastava, J. stated that the court‟s answer to the
question :
"Whether after coming into operation of the Constitution, the right of pre-emption is contrary to the
provisions of Article 19(1)(f) read with Article 13 of the Constitution, or is it saved by Clause (5)
of Article 19 ?'' is that the right of pre-emption based on the ground of vicinage is saved by Clause (5) of
Article 19 and has therefore not become void under Article 13 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court
upheld the validity of the right to pre-emption between co-sharers, on the ground that restrictions imposed
by such a right in the way of acquiring, holding and disposing of property were in the interest of public.