JUDGMENT : B.N. Dash, J. - The defendants 11 and 12 are in appeal against the decision of the appellate Court modifying the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in a suit in which the plaintiffs claimed for partition and allotment of their shares and also to purchase the share of their brother (defendant No. 9) which had been alienated, in exercise of their right u/s 22 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (herein- after to as 'the Act') 2. In order to know the relationship of the plaintiffs with defendants 9 and 10 and also for an easy grasp over the dispute between the parties, the following genealogy may be usefully noted : Parikhita Das (dead) | ------------------------- | | Gopal Bhikari (alive) (died in 1970) | | | ----------------------------- Ramachandra | | | (D. 10) Bhagaban Bishnumohan Harekrushna (P. 1) (P. 2) (P. 3) 3. Plaintiff's case is that their father along with Mohan Das (father of defendants 1 to 5). Saturi Mallik (father of defendants and 7) and Guruprasad (ancestor of defendant No. 8) reclaimed Ac. 1.06 decimals of land out of plot No. 2405 under Khata No. 623 of village Padhuan which was a part of the estate of one Mani Dibya. The reclamation was prior to 1927 Settlement and in course of time for the sake of convenience the said co-owners amicably divided the land into 4 shares and separately possessed their respective shares After the death of Gopal, there arose some dissesion in the family for which reason Harekrushna and Ramachandra colluded with each other and executed a registered sale deed dated 25-6-1971 (Ext -A) for RS 2 000/- in respect of 0.13 1/4 decimals of land forming a portion of Gopal's share of the aforesaid acquired land in favour of defend 11 and 12. The defendant No. 10. according to the plaintiff title over the land,conveyed. Being armed with sale defendants 11 and 12 created disturbance in their possession the Plaintiffs instituted the suit for the aforestated relief. 4. Defendants 11 and 12 only have contested the suit In their joint written statement, they averred that the land measuring Ac 106 declaims was reclaimed not by Gopala but by Parikhita along with Mohan. Saturi and Guruprasad and in course of time those co-owners " Partitioned the said property, by metes and bounds and possessed their respective shares. 4. Defendants 11 and 12 only have contested the suit In their joint written statement, they averred that the land measuring Ac 106 declaims was reclaimed not by Gopala but by Parikhita along with Mohan. Saturi and Guruprasad and in course of time those co-owners " Partitioned the said property, by metes and bounds and possessed their respective shares. After the death of Parikhita. his share was tioned by metes and bounds between Gopala and Bhikari equally and after the death of Gopal. his share came to be divided amongst the plain tiff and defendant 9 equally by metes and bounda. DefendanJ 10 got the share of Bhikari by an ore, gift. Thus while defendant 9 was 1/24th interest in the entire acquired land, defendant 10 had i/8th of the previous partition by metes and bounds not only the sons and grandsons of Parikhita, the suit for partition was misconceived. After stating the issues and findings of courts belwo, it is held; 8. The second contention undoubtedly raises an important question regarding the interpretation and scope of Section 22 of the Act. This requires me to determine whether the words immovable property of an intestate occurring therein include agricultural land of an intestate or not . To examine this question, it will be use full to read Section 22(1) of the Act and Entry no. 18 in List II (State List and Entry Nos. 5 and 6 contained in List II ( Concurrent List ) of the Seventh Schedule to the constitution . Section 22(1) of the Act is as under: "22. Preferential right to acquire property in certain cases- (1) where, after the commencement of this Act, an interest in any immovable property of an intestate, or in any business carried on by him or her, whether soley or in conjunction with others, devolves upon two or more heirs specified in Class of the Schedule, and any one of such heirs proposes to transfer his or her interest in the property or business, the other heirs shall nave a preferential right to acquire the interest proposed to be trans- ferred. (2) to (3) xxx xxx xxx Explanation :-In this Section, 'Court' means the Court within the limits of whose jurisdiction the immovable property is situate or the business is carried on, and includes any other Court which the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf." The aforesaid entries read as under : "List-II Entry No. 18 : Land, that is to say, right in or over land, land tenures including the relation of landlord and tenant ; and the collection of rents, transfer and alienation of agricultural land ; colonization." "List-III Entry No. 5 : Marriage and divorce ; infants and minors ; adoption ; wills, intestacy, succession ; joint family and partition ; all matters in respect of which parties in judicial proceedings were immediately before the commencement of this Constitution subject to their personal law." "Entry No. 6 ; Transfer of property other than agricultural land ', registration of deeds and documents". 10. Section 22(1) of the Act occurring in Chapter-II deels with intestate succession and provides for a preferential right to acquite the interest, inter alia, in immovable property proceed to be transferred. The expression "immovable property" has, of course, not been defined in the Act but the use of the word 'any' before the expression "immovable property" signifies the agricultural land is included within the expression "immovable property". Further, according to Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, immovable property includes, inter alia, land which means agricultural land also. In that view of the matter, there remains hardly any room for doubt that the expression "immovable property", includes agricultural land The argument of Mr. Further, according to Section 3(26) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, immovable property includes, inter alia, land which means agricultural land also. In that view of the matter, there remains hardly any room for doubt that the expression "immovable property", includes agricultural land The argument of Mr. Acharya, the learned counsel for the appellants is that Section 22(1) of the Act lays down the law on transfer of an interest, inter alia, in any immovable property but since Entry No. 6, List-Ill takes out the power of the Parliament to frame law regarding transfer of agricultural land and Entry No. 18, List-ll clearly vests such power on the State Legislature, it must be taken that the Parliament had no jurisdiction to include agricultural land in Section 22(1) and therefore it has to be construed that the expression "immovable property" occurring in Section 22 (1) does not include agricultural land 1 am unable to read Section 22(1) of the Act to mean that it lays dwon a law on the question of transfer of immovable property. If that would have been so, the matter would have been otherwise, and the argument would have carried some force in view if the fact that according to Entry No. 18, List-ll the State Legislature has jurisdiction to enact law on the question of transfer and alienation of agricultural land. All that Section 22(1) of the Act says is that if an interest, inter alia, in any immovable property of an intestate, devolves upon two or more heirs specified in Class-I of the Schedule, and any one of such heirs proposes to transfer his or her interest in the property the other heirs shall have a preferential right to acquiie the interest proposed to be transferred. This means that Section 22(1) does not lay down any law touching upon any transfer and alienation of agricultural land, but it merely regulates the right of transfer in such land by saying that the transferor has to first offer the same to other heirs in Class-1 of the Schedule and if they do not intend to take, then he will transfer such land to others. That being so, I am unable to hold, as argued by Mr. That being so, I am unable to hold, as argued by Mr. Acharya, that Section 22(1) of the Act lays down a law on the transfer of an immovable property including agricultural land and the expression "immovable property" appearing therein does not include agricultural land. On the other hand, find that Section 22(1) merely regulates the transfer of an interest, inter alia, in immovable property including agricultural land and the State Legislature having no jurisdiction to enact any law two regulate transfer of interest in agricultural land, the Parliament in competent to enact law regulating the transfer of an interest in immovable property as it has done in Section 22(1), being empowered under Item 97, 7, List-I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, 11. Mr. Acharya for the appellants has brought to my notice the following two decisions ; Jeswaran v. Licamadevi AIR 1931 fte 16 and Jasuant and Ors. v. Smt. Basanti Devi (1970) PLR 958 in support of his contention. In those cases, both the Rajasthan and Punjab and Haryana High Courts came to hold that the words "interest in any immovable property of an intestates" appearing in Section 22 of the Act do not include the interest in any agricultural land of an intestate and as such after devolution of an interest upon two or more heirs specified in Class-1- of the Schedule and on transfer of his/her interest in the agricultural land, other heirs would have a preferential right to acquire the interest of the transferor. In these cases, it was assumed that Section 22(1) of the Act lays down a law an transfer of agricultural land but 1 have held that it is not so. There- fore, with respect to the Hon'ble Judges of those High Courts, 1 am unable to accept the view taken by them. 12. Mr. P. K. Mishra (2), the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has brought to my notice a decision of this Court in Ganesh Chandra Pradhan v. Rukmani Mohanty 36 (1970) CLT 988. Having gone through the decision, find that the point of law raised by Mr. Acharya had not been raised in the aforesaid case and or such no answer to the point of law has been rendered therein. The said case came to be decided by Han'ble . Having gone through the decision, find that the point of law raised by Mr. Acharya had not been raised in the aforesaid case and or such no answer to the point of law has been rendered therein. The said case came to be decided by Han'ble . N. Misra, J. (as his Lordship then was), and the points that arise for consideration were when right u/s 22 of the Act is available, what should be the duty of the Court when statute does not clearly provide the mode of exercise of right conferred by it and whether Class-I co-heirs can challenge the transfer even if transfer is affected, on failure of the transferor to put them in notice of such proposed transfer. 13. In view of what has been stated above, the second contention raised for the appellants also fails. Both the points raised by Mr. Acharya for the appellants having thus failed, the appeal is without merit. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are hereby confirmed. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their respective costs throughout. Final Result : Dismissed