SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) :-

(2.) THE petitioners have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Board of Revenue dated 31st December, 1976.

(3.) THERE is no doubt about the fact that the total area of the holding in dispute is less than 3 1/8 acre and according to the preliminary decree all the three tenure-holders have got 1/3 share each. According to the plaintiff she has got no land other than the land in dispute whereas other two co-tenure-holders have got other land as well. THEREfore, she has got preferential right of purchase. The case of the other defendant-co-tenure-holder Shankar Lal was that other land held by him had been declared to be Abadi under Section 143 of the Act whereas the husband of the plaintiff has got certain land. THEREfore, he has the preferential right of purchase and not the plaintiff. Badri Prasad, the other defendant-co-tenure-holder also put up his case for preferential right of purchase.