Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. The learned counsel submits that a fresh order was passed pursuant to order of remand dated 09.11.2006 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue in Revision Case No. 46 of 2006 (Annexure- 8) and the remand was limited only to find out who exactly was in occupancy of plot no. 44. The learned counsel submits that after necessary enquiries, it was found that the private respondent no. 5 is in possession of plot no. 44 having common boundary for plot no. 43 and

44. The learned counsel submits that though the petitioners are claiming to be the co-sharer of plot no. 44 also, but pursuant to the sale-deed executed with respect to plot no. 44, the petitioners did not file any application for pre-emption claiming themself to be the co- sharer of the property. The vendor of the property has not only executed the sale-deed in favour of the respondent no. 5 with respect to plot no. 43 as well as plot no. 44, but has also given the possession of the said property to respondent no. 5 and the respondent no. 5 is in possession of the property. He submits that this aspect of the matter has been considered by the authorities below and all the three authorities have decided against the petitioners after the order of remand. He submits that there is no perversity in the impugned orders. He also submits that the right of pre-emption is a weak right.