As per the case facts, the original writ petitioners challenged Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, as unconstitutional, arguing it violated fundamental rights under the Indian Constitution. ... The appeal to the Supreme Court arose after the Delhi High Court dismissed their writ petition, upholding the constitutionality of the provision. The question arose whether Section 50(a) of the Delhi Land Reforms Act was unconstitutional, specifically in light of its compatibility with various articles of the Constitution and the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act regarding agricultural land. Finally, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision. The Court found that Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act would operate in respect of succession to agricultural lands in the State of Himachal Pradesh, and that Section 4(2) of the Act (before its omission) made it clear that the Act's provisions would not apply to devolution of tenancy rights in agricultural holdings. With the deletion of Section 4(2), there is now no exception to the applicability of Section 22.