Sharma, J.—This is a petition by Kishori under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents are the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, the Additional Commissioner, Jaipur-Alwar, Girraj, Ram Sahai and Chandra.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner purchased from Chandra (Respondent No. 5) fields Nos. 54, 55, 56 and 114 in village Pataunda, Tehsil Hindaun, for Rs. 300/-and a sale-deed was executed and registered evidencing the sale on the 16th of August, 1950. Girraj and Ram Sahai (Respondents Nos. 3 and 4) filed a suit for pre-emption of the aforesaid fields in the court of Assistant Collector, Hindaun, on the 14th November, 1950, basing their claim on the ground that the above fields had been sold to the petitioner, who was not the resident of the village in which the fields were situated and that the said respondents were the residents of the village where the fields were situated. They, therefore, prayed for a decree for pre-emption in respect of the said plots. Learned Assistant Collector, who tried the suit, dismissed it by his judgment dated 30th June, 1951, holding that the petitioner was the sub-tenant of the neighbouring field No. 185 and the plaintiffs (respondents Nos. 3 and 4) had absolutely no interest in any of the fields belonging to the vendor, and, as such, they were not entitled to file the suit for pre-emption. Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 went in appeal to the court of the Additional Commissioner (Respondent No. 2), who reversed the decree of the first court and decreed the suit by his judgment dated 10th January, 1952. The petitioner went in appeal against the judgment of the Additional Commissioner to the Board of Revenue, who by their judgment dated 10th April, 1953, confirmed the judgment and decree of respondent No. 2 and dismissed the appeal on the ground that the petitioner was not a sub-tenant of the property in suit and therefore he was not entitled to resist the claim for pre-emption of the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

3. We have heard Shri M.M. Tewari on behalf of the petitioner. Nobody appears on behalf of the respondents. The main contention of Shri M. M. Teweri is that the provisions of proviso (a) to sub-sec. (2) of sec. 11 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act, 1945, are ultra vires and unconstitutional inasmuch as they make a discrimination between the residents of one part of Rajasthan and that of another. No such law exists in any other part of Rajasthan except the territories which once formed part of the erstwhile State of Jaipur, and after the coming into force of the Constitution of India, the provisions of the proviso (a) to sec. 11(2) of the Jaipur Tenancy Act became void and inoperative by virtue of Art, 13 and 14 of the Constitution of India. It has also been argued that under Art. 19 of the Constitution all citizens have the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property and if any restriction is placed on such rights, it should be a reasonable restriction It is not a reasonable restriction that the owner of a property should be compelled to sell it to a person who is a resident of the village where the property transferred is situated, nor is it a reasonable restriction on the right of the vendee of holding the purchased property that he should make way to a person who is a resident in the village in which the property to be pre-empted is situated.

4. We have considered the argument of Mr. Tewari with anxious care especially as nobody appears on behalf of the respondents and have gone through the record of the case as well as the judgments of all the revenue courts. The provision which is attacked as unconstitutional finds place in clause (ii) of proviso (a) to sec, 11(2) of the Act. Sub-sec. (2) along with this proviso and sub-clause (ii) reads, as follows—

11(2)—The interest of a Pattedar tenant is transferable ;

Provided that................

(a) in the case of a permanent transfer by voluntary sale made by a Pattedar tenant being an agriculturist ;

(ii) if it is made in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document