Prasenjit Mandal - (1.) CHALLENGE is to the judgment and order dated September 4, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Barasat in Misc. Appeal No.102 of 1992 thereby affirming the Order No.50 dated March 21, 1992 passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court, Barasat in Misc. Case No.36 of 1982.
(2.) THE petitioner herein is the pre-emptor and he filed an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal land Reforms Act against the opposite party herein for pre-emption in respect of the land in case as mentioned in the schedule of the said application and such application was registered as Misc. Case No.36 of 1982. THE petitioner has contended that the opposite party is a stranger purchaser of the land in case. THE petitioner has claimed pre-emption over the land in case on the ground of cosharership. THE matter is contested and the learned Trial Judge has dismissed the said misc. case on the ground of limitation. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a misc. appeal being Misc. Appeal No.102 of 1992 and the said misc. appeal was also dismissed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, this application has been preferred. At the time of beginning of the argument, Mr. B.K. Banerjee, Senior Advocate for the petitioner has contended that this application should be allowed after setting aside the impugned judgment and order on the ground that the First Appellate Court has committed errors of law in arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner cannot exercise the right of pre-emption in view of the provisions of Section 2(g) & 23 of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the opposite party has submitted that the provisions of the West Bengal Holding Revenue Act, 1979 will not apply, but, the learned Trial Judge has rightly dismissed the misc. appeal on merits. Therefore, the order should be sustained.
(3.) IN view of the submissions made by the learned advocates of both the sides, I am to consider whether the learned Trial judge was justified in dismissing the misc. appeal on the ground stated in the body of the judgment. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that the alleged sale on which pre-emption had been sought for in respect of the land in case took place on April 22, 1981. The petitioner has contended that he was not served with a notice under Section 5(5) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. The learned First Appellate Court has concluded that the application for pre-emption was filed by the petitioner within the period of limitation in view of the provisions of Section 137 of the Limitation Act. Since, it is not a matter of dispute for the purpose of disposal of this revisional application, this matter is not considered at all in this revisional application and it is left open for decision afresh.;