AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—Heard the Counsel for the purchaser-petitioners and the Counsel for the pre-emptor-5th respondent.
It appears that the Pre-emption Application preferred by 5th Respondent u/s 16(3), LC Case No. 3/1995-96 was dismissed but it was set aside by Appellate Authority at the instance of 5th respondent in LC Appeal No. 10/96-97. The Revision Application, thereafter preferred by petitioners- purchaser in Case No. 46-2001/133-98 was dismissed for default by the Member Board of Revenue. The Restoration Petition preferred by petitioners was also dismissed.
In the facts and circumstances as the petitioner-purchaser claimed right and title on the basis of the sale-deed and the Pre-emptor-5th respondent claimed preferential right being the adjacent raiyat, it is desirable that the Revision Application should be heard on merit.
Accordingly, I set aside the orders dated 19th April, 2002 and 7th June, 2002 passed in Revision Case No. 46-2001/133-98 and remit the matter to the Member Board of Revenue for decision on merit.
The petitioners and 5th respondent both should appear before the Member Board of Revenue on or before 11th October, 2002 when the Member Board of Revenue will fix a date of hearing and thereafter dispose of the case on merit preferably within three months from the date of appearance.
It may be mentioned that this Court has not determined the claim on merit.
The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions.