R. K. Manisana J.-This petition raises an issue regarding court fee payable in respect of an application made by a tenant under section 132(7) of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. 2. Section 132 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, for short the 'Act' runs as follows : "132. (1) If a landowner at any time intends to sell his land held by a tenant, he shall give notice in writing of his intention to such tenant and offer to sell the land to him. In case the latter intends to purchase the land, he shall intimate in writing hi, readiness to do so within two months from the date of receipt of such notice. (2) If there is any dispute about the reasonable price payable for the land, either the landowner or the tenant may apply in writing to .the competent authority for determining the reason­able price; and the competent authority, after giving notice to the other party and to all other persons interested in the land and after making such inquiry as it thinks fit. shall fix the reaso­nable price of the land which shall be the average of the price obtaining for similar lands in the locality during the ten years immediately preceding the date on which the application is made. (3) The tenant shall deposit with the competent authority the amount of the price determined under sub-section (2) within such period as may be prescribed. (4) On deposit of the entire amount of the reasonable price, the prescribed authority shall issue a certificate in the prescribed form to the tenant declaring him to be the purchaser of the land; the competent authority shall also direct that the reasonable price deposited shall be paid to the landowner. (5) If the tenant does not exercise the right of purchase in the response to the notice given to him by the landowner under sub­section (1) or by sub-section (3), such tenant shall forfeit his right of purchase, and the landowner shall be entitled to sell such land to any other person. (6) The forfeiture of the right to purchase any land under this section shall not affect the other rights of the tenant in such land. (6) The forfeiture of the right to purchase any land under this section shall not affect the other rights of the tenant in such land. (7) If a landowner sells his land in contravention of sub-section (1) the tenant, within two months from the date of his knowledge of such sale, may apply in writing to the competent authority expressing his intention to purchase the land at the price received by the landowner or at reasonable price determined under sub­section (2). The competent authority, after giving opportunity of being heard to the landowner, the purchaser and to any other person interested in the land, and if satisfied that the sale has been made in contravention of sub-section (1), may ask the tenant to deposit the amount of the price actually paid or the reasonable price, whichever is less, within such period as may be prescribed, and upon deposit of such amount by the tenant, the competent authority shall pass an order showing the application of pre-emption and thereupon the provision of sub-sections (4) to (6) shall be applicable mutatis mutandis." 3. Under sub-section (1) of section 132, the landowner has to offer to sale the land about to be sold to the tenant by giving a notice in writing, and if the tenant intends to purchase the land he shall intimate in writing his readiness to do so within two months from the date of receipt of the notice. Sub-section (7) of section 132 provides that, if the land owner sells his land in contravention of sub-section (1) of section 132, within two months from the date of his knowledge of the sale, he may apply in writing to the competent authority expressing his intention to purchase the land at the price received by the land owner or at the reasonable price determined under the sub-section (2). 4. Under sub-section (2) of section 132, if there is dispute about the reasonable price payable for the land, the competent authority shall fix reasonable price of the land, as provided thereunder. 1.Section 161 of the Act reads : "Court-fees.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Court Fees Act, 1870, every application, appeal or other proceeding under this Act shall bear a court fee stamp of such value as may be prescribed.” The term "prescribed" means prescribed by the Rules, under section 2(s) of the Act. 1.Section 161 of the Act reads : "Court-fees.-Notwithstanding anything contained in the Court Fees Act, 1870, every application, appeal or other proceeding under this Act shall bear a court fee stamp of such value as may be prescribed.” The term "prescribed" means prescribed by the Rules, under section 2(s) of the Act. The use of the non-obstinate clause in section 161 indicates that, if an application is chargeable with fees under the Court Fees Act, but a different Court Fee is prescribed by the Rules, the fee prescribed by the Rules is chargeable in respect of an application made under the Act. 6. Rule 206 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Rules, 1961, for short the 'Rules' runs in the following terms: "Every document mentioned in column 3 of Schedule V shall be chargeable with court fee as specified against it in Column 4 of the said schedule and no document so chargeable with fee shall be entertained or acted upon by any officer or authority until the full amount of court fee chargeable there on has been paid.” 7. Schedule V to the Rules indicates fee chargeable in respect of the applications under various sections of the Act. But fee payable for an application under section 132 (7) is not provided. However, fee payable for an application for determination of the reasonable price under section 132 (2) is provided. But Schedule V (Part C) provides that application, which is not exempted from payment of court fees and not specifically pro vide J for in the schedule is charge­able as in the Court Fees Act for the proceeding of that nature. 8. Section 7 of the Court Fees Act provides for computation of fees payable in certain suits. Section 7 (vi) of the Court Fees Act runs as follows : ''In suits to enforce a right of pre-emption according to the value (computed in accordance with paragraph (v) of this section,) of the land, house or garden in respect of which the right is claimed.” 9. Mr. R. K. Sanajaoba Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that under the Act and the Rules, there is no provision for charging court fees and, therefore, no fee is payable when a tenant makes an application under section 132 (7). 10. Mr. Mr. R. K. Sanajaoba Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that under the Act and the Rules, there is no provision for charging court fees and, therefore, no fee is payable when a tenant makes an application under section 132 (7). 10. Mr. N. Pramodchandra Singh, learned Government Advocate, has submitted that proceeding under section 132 (7) is in the nature of a suit for pre-emption and, therefore, section 7 (vi) of the Court Fees Act, shall apply to such a proceeding in view of the Schedule V (Part C) to the Rules. 11. The right of pre-emption is not a right to the things sold but a right to the offer to a thing about to be sold. This right is called primary or inherent right. The pre-emptor has also a secondary right or remedial right to follow the thing sold. It is a right of substitution but not of re-purchase i. e. the pre-emptor takes the entire bargain and steps into the shoes of the original vendee. It is a right to acquire the whole of the property sold and not a share of the property sold (Bishen Singh vs. Khazeng Singh, AIR 1958 SC 838 ). 12. Section 132 does not materially affect the general character­istics of the right of pre-emption, although the right of a tenant is the creature of the statute. Therefore, we are of the view that the proceeding under section 132 is in the nature of the proceeding under section 7 (vi) of the Court Fees Act. There is no provision under the Court Fees Act nor under the Act providing for exemption of court fee in respect of the application under section 132 (7). Therefore, we are of the view that section 7 (vi) of the Court Fees Act shall be applicable to the present case. 13. The next question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the court fee is to be paid under sub-clause (a), (b) or (d) of section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act. Therefore, we are of the view that section 7 (vi) of the Court Fees Act shall be applicable to the present case. 13. The next question that arises for consideration in the present case is whether the court fee is to be paid under sub-clause (a), (b) or (d) of section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act. Section 7 (v) (b) runs as follows : "Where the land forms an entire estate, or a definite share of an estate, paying annual revenue to Government, or forms part of such estate and is recorded as aforesaid; and such revenue is settled, but not permanently five times the revenue so payable." Section 7 (v) (d) runs : "Where the land forms part of an estate paying revenue to Government, but Is not a definite share of such estate and is not separately assessed as abovementioned-the market value of the land.* (emphasis added) Sub-clause (d) shall apply where the land forms part of a revenue-paying estate but is not a definite share of such estate and does not come under sub-clause (a) or (b). i. e. sub-clause (d) will apply where the plain­tiff sues for an indefinite share of an estate paying annual revenue to the Government. The mode of valuation under sub-clause (b) according to the annual revenue is applicable not only when the land in suit forms entire estate but also when it forms a definite share of any estate. In such a case, the value of the suit is to be calculated according to the proportionate part of the revenue which corresponds to the fraction which the laud in suit constitutes out of the whole estate. However, when the land is a part of the revenue-paying estate but is neither a definite share of the estate nor separately assessed revenue, the suit is to be valued according to the market value of the land under clause (d), and not according to the annual revenue. 14. In the present case, the Zamabandi (Annexure A/1 to the petition) indicates that the patta number of the land is 43/272 BT in the names of the respondents2, 3 and 4 having a total area of 3.44 acres bearing revenue of is 25.47. The land alleged to have sold is 94 acres out of the land under patta no. 14. In the present case, the Zamabandi (Annexure A/1 to the petition) indicates that the patta number of the land is 43/272 BT in the names of the respondents2, 3 and 4 having a total area of 3.44 acres bearing revenue of is 25.47. The land alleged to have sold is 94 acres out of the land under patta no. 43/272 BT and, therefore, it is a part of the revenue-paying estate having a definite share of the land under patta No. 43/272 although revenue has not been separately assessed. Therefore, it cannot be said to be an indefinite share of the land. In such a situation, we are of the view that clause (b) of section 7 (v) of the Court Fees Act is applicable to the present case. 15. For the foregoing reasons., we set aside the order of the Revenue Triounal passed in Revenue- Appeal No. 10/79 to the extent indicated above. The petition is partly allowed with the above observations. No costs. Y.Ibotombi Singh, J.-I agree.