1. - Heard learned counsels.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench judgment of this Court in LRs of Smt. Sire Kanwar Maloo v. Shri Daudas Mantri, 2007 (3) DNJ (Raj.) 1661 in which the Division Bench of this Court has laid down that on the basis of common wall between the two adjacent properties only the plaintiff cannot claim a right of pre-emption. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant part of the judgment of Division Bench in para 30 to 37:-

"30. The foundation of the case of Jagannath's case (supra) being only a custom, based on a personal law. The force of customs being diluted by enactment of a statute, this case loses its binding force. It may at best have a kind of illustrative value. Thus, in our considered opinion, the ratio of the case of Jagannath's case has no binding value for deciding the question in hand. A custom in certain statutes have been recognised to have been continuing value but in the Pre-emption Act, no such saving has been provided for any prevailing custom, therefore also, a custom based on a perusal law looses significance altogether