BADAL CHANDRA DAS Vs. KINKAR CHANDRA DAS
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
BADAL CHANDRA DAS
KINKAR CHANDRA DAS
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS Rule arises out of a proceeding for pre-emption under section 8 of the Land Reforms Act which was allowed by the learned Munsif, Bishnupur, by an order dated June 16, 1979, passed in Judicial misc. Case No. 41 of 1977 but was dismissed on an appeal by the pre-emptee by an order dated June 12, 1980, passed by the learned District Judge, Bankura in misc. Appeal No. 17 of 1979. The preemptor has obtained this Rule oh a revisional application challenging the aforesaid appellate order.
(2.) MATERIAL facts do not appear to be in dispute. Dag No. 12267 of Khatian No. 165, Mouza-Deshra, Police Station-Kotal-pur, measuring O. 26 decimals admittedly belonged to one Jugal Das Baishnab. On june 26, 1965, the pre-emptor purchased o. 01 decimals out of the said plot from jugal Das and thus became a co-sharer of the holding. On December 11, 1976, the pre-emptee/opposite party purchased the balance land of that holding from Jugal das for a consideration of Rs. 5,000/ -. No notice of such transfer was, however, served upon the pre-emptor petitioner. On october 11, 1977, the pre-emptor filed the application for pre-emption under section 8 of the Land Reforms Act, as a co-sharer by depositing the consideration of Rs. 5,000/-together with the statutory compensation of Rs. 500/ -.
(3.) THIS application for pre-emption was contested by the pre-emptee opposite party on various grounds. For our present purposes it is not necessary to refer to all those grounds since all of them except the one as to the maintainability of the proceedings had been concurrently overruled by the two courts below. On the point of maintainability the pre-emptee raised an objection that since the land did not appertain an agricultural holding, an application under section 8 of the Land Reforms act, was not maintainable. That objection was overruled by the learned Munsif when he held that though the land in dispute Was classified as 'bhiti' it was a part of a raiyati holding recorded as Raiyati Dakhali Satwa visistha and since it had been purchased for the purpose of Khamar it could not be said that it was not agricultural land. The learned District Judge in dismissing the claim of pre-emption overruled the learned munsif on the point. On consideration of evidence the learned District Judge found that since before the date of vesting the land in dispute had ceased to be used for any agricultural purpose and on the other hand it was being used for non-agricultural purpose of constructing homestead and hence it could not be said to be agricultural land any further or the holding to be an agricultural holding. Feeling aggrieved the pre-emptor has now challenged the said decision of the learned District judge.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.