SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J. - (1.) The short question which falls for consideration is, whether a pre- emption application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, on the ground of co-sharership, can be rejected at the outset as not maintainable if the application is accompanied by a deposit of an amount less than the consideration shown in the sale deed sought to be pre-empted, along with the statutory interest of 10%, on the allegations that the price shown in the deed was inflated and the actual consideration money paid according to the pre-emptor is the lesser amount deposited with the pre-emption application and that no notice under Section 5 of the said Act was served on the co- sharer/pre-emptor.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court acted without jurisdiction in rejecting the application for pre-emption, filed on the ground of co-sharership, at the outset as not maintainable. In the application under Section 8 of the 1955 Act, the pre- emptor/petitioner had specifically challenged the amount shown as consideration in the sale deed-in-question on the ground that it was inflated and had deposited the actual amount of consideration according to his version, along with statutory interest of 10%, within the statutory period. The pre-emption application was also filed within limitation.
(3.) Learned counsel seeks to distinguish the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the recent judgment, Barasat Eye Hospital and Others Vs. Kaustabh Mondal, reported at (2019) 19 SCC 767, wherein it was held that the deposit of the full consideration money as shown in the sale deed, along with statutory interest of 10 %, has to be paid along with the pre-emption application within limitation, by laying stress on the observations made by the Supreme Court in paragraph no. 23 of the said report. In the said paragraph, it was observed, inter alia: "... In fact, the effect of the right to pre-emption is that a private contract inter se the parties and that too, in respect of land, is sought to be interfered with, and substituted by a purchaser who fortuitously has land in the vicinity to the land being sold. It is not a case of a co-sharer, which would rest on a different ground.";