FAUZDARICHOUDHARY Vs. ADDITIONAL MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ applications, based on similar facts and involving the same questions of law, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The applications arise out of pre-emption proceedings in which the claim of pre-emption made on behalf of respondent No. 4 who is common in both the cases has been allowed. The two applications in this Court are at the instance of the second transferees who happen to be different in the two cases. The original vendors who are common in both the applications have been impleaded as respondents 6 to 8 in C. W. J. C. No. 5998 of 1984 and as 7 to 9 in C. W. J. C. No. 6020 of 1984. The first purchasers in the two cases are different and have been impleaded as respondent No. 5 in C. W. J. C. No. 5998 of 1984 and as respondents 5 and 6 in C. W. J. C. No. 6020 of 1984. The per-emptor again is common in both the cases and has been impleaded as respondent No. 4 in the two applications.

(3.) The subject-matter of dispute are some land, six decimals in area in each of the two cases which have been described in para 4 of both the writ petitions.