Tarun Chatterjee, J. - (1.) These are ten Revision Cases referred to this Special Bench by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court. The point which induced a Division Bench of this Court to refer to this Bench is whether a substantive right conferred upon a co-sharer in a portion or share of a holding of a raiyat to exercise the right of preemption had been taken away by deletion of the words 'and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue' from the definition of "holding" in section 2 of sub-section (6) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act after the words 'means the land held by a raiyat'. On this question a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Damayanti Maity v. Aswini Kumar Jana, 1990 (2) CLJ 378 , held that in view of deletion of the words 'and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue' an application by a co-sharer of such a holding was no longer maintainable in law. This question again cropped up before another Division Bench of this Court, which however, expressed its dissent and directed that the matters appearing before the said Division Bench on the afore said question, be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to decide the question as posed hereinearlier. Accordingly, this Special Bench has been constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice for decision on the aforesaid question.
(2.) The question, therefore, needs to be decided in these reference cases is whether in view of the deletion of the word 'and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue' in the definition of "holding" in section 2(6) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (in short "the Act") by virtue of section 26(1)(a) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 an application for preemption filed at the instance of a preaemptor on the ground that he is a co-sharer of a portion or a share of a holding which is transferred to any other person other than a co-sharer of a raiyat of the said holding was, maintainable in law or not under section 8 of the Act.
(3.) In our view, the question that has been referred by the Hon'ble Chief Justice as noted here in earlier, need not be gone into by us at all in view of the subsequent amendments made in section 2(6) and section 8 of the Act with effect from 7th August, 1969. For the purpose of coming to this conclusion, as noted hereinearlier, it is now necessary to consider the legislative history of the word "holding" as in section 2(6) of the Act and section 8 of the Act which conferred power on a co-sharer to apply for preemption if a share or a portion of a "holding" is transferred, to any person other than a co-sharer in the holding. Section 2(6) of this Act defined "holding". Originally "holding" under this Act was defined as the land or lands held by a raiyat and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue. Under section 8 of the Act, a co-sharer of a holding was conferred power to apply for preemption of the land when a portion of share of the holding of a raiyat was transferred to any other person other than a cosharer in the holding. Originally section 8 of the Act read as under: "If a portion or share of a holding of a raiyat is transferred to any person other than a co-sharer in the holding, any co-sharer raiyat of the holding may, within three months of the service of the notice given under sub-section (5) of section 5, or any raiyat possessing land adjoining such holding, may, within four months of the date of such transfer, apply to the Munsiff having territorial jurisdiction for transfer of the said portion or share of the holding to him, subject to limit mentioned in section 14(M) on deposit of the consideration money together with a further sum of 10 per cent of that amount: Provided that if a co-sharer raiyat and a raiyat possessing land adjoining such holding both apply for such transfer, the former shall have the prior right to have a such portion or share of the holding transferred to him, and in such a case, the deposit made by the latter shall be refunded to him:";