LAWS(CAL)-1977-10-1

SATISH CHANDRA KUILA Vs. KALIPADA MAITY

Decided On October 03, 1977
SATISH CHANDRA KUILA Appellant
V/S
KALIPADA MAITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against the order dated 4ui January. , ism, passed pre-emption Appeal No,. 1 to 1969 by the learned Munsif, Dantan, reversing the order passia by the revenue Officer, Contai, in Pre-emption case No. 38 of 1966. the petitioner in the mstani rule is the pre-emptee and the opposite party made an application for pre-emption against the petitioner on the ground of vichange under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. It has been held by the learned Munsif in disposing of the said pre-emptiom appeal No. 1 of 1969 that the applicant, held the contiguous plots of lands in respect of the lands sought to be pre-empted excepting four plots, namely; plots nos. 565, 665, 662 (3330 and 661. The said four plots were not contiguous plots and pre-emption was not allowed in respect of those lands but in respect of other lands the application for pre-emption was allowed.

(2.) MR. Mitter, learned Advocate appearing for me petitioner Challagenged this appeareorder or pre-emption on four grounds. Mr. Mitter Comenue that the appreciate court having Nela that the tana covered by the documents of transfer were not similar and the price of such lands also vanea, the learned Munsit erred in arbitrarally fixing the valuation by taking average price of the area of the lands in question from the total vaiuation given in die document of transfer.

(3.) MR. Mitter contended that it was the Duty of learned Munsu precisely determine are valuation of the in respect of when the order of pre emption was to be passed. It appears to us that in the instants case, the plots of lands in respect of which the application for pre- emption was not allowed were more valuable lands being bamboo grove and betel grove and as such by taking an average mean of in the total price hxea for an the lands in the documents of transfer, the present petitioner has not suffered in any was there is no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Munsif on that score. But we agree on principle that the court should deremine the valuation of land in respect of which then order for pre-emtion should be passed.