BULBUL BHANDARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the father of the petitioners had filed the application for pre-emption on 14/7/2003 claiming himself to be the co-sharer and adjoining raiyat of the vended property. The learned counsel submits that vended property is Plot No. 43 and the adjoining property is Plot No. 44. He further submits that initially the order was passed in favour of the father of the petitioners and the claim for pre-emption was allowed vide order dtd. 8/11/2004 and an inspection was also conducted. The learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal on 3/12/2004 against the order dtd. 8/11/2004 before the respondent No. 3, which was dismissed, against which revision was filed and the matter was remanded for on the spot inspection with regard to plot No. 44 and for passing order.