T.Chatterjee, J. - (1.) A short but important question of law that arises for determination in this revisional application is whether the saving clause as contained in Section 26(2) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 (in short "Revenue Act") saves a pending proceeding for pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (in short "Land Act") after amendment of the definition of "Holding", as contained in Section 2(6) of the Land Act. This question has, however, already been decided by me in an earlier revisional application which is reported in 1994 (Vol. II) CHN 35 (Md. Abdul Karim & Ors v. Jitendra Nath Mondal & Ors). The same view was also expressed by another learned Judge of this Court in 94 CalWN 335 (Jella Rahaman Mondal & Ors v. Gelezam Bibi). But after hearing the learned Counsel, appearing for the parties and after considering the scheme and object of the Revenue Act in details and in depth, I feel inclined to express a view contrary to the view expressed in 1994 (Vol. II) CHN 35 (Md. Abdul Karim & Ors v. Jitendra Nath Mondal & Ors).
(2.) In the earlier revisional application, reported in 1994 (Vol-II) CHN 35 (Md. Abdul Karim & Ors v. Jitendra Nath Mondal & Ors) I have held that in a pending pre-emption proceeding under Section 8 of the Land Act, the definition of "Holding" as contained in section 2(6) of the Land Act would not be applicable. But, as noted hereinabove, considering the problem at hand in depth and in detail and also the scheme and object of the Revenue Act, I am now of the view that the definition of 'Holding' as contained in the amended section 2(6) of the Land Act would be applicable in a pending proceeding for pre-emption, i.e. the saving clause, as contained in Section 26(2) of the Revenue Act cannot save a pending proceeding for pre-emption filed under Section 8 of the Land Act. In that view of the matter, it most be held that no interference under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code can be made against the order of the Appellate Court rejecting the application for pre-emption filed by the pre-emptor/petitioner. Reasons are as follows :
(3.) The petitioner, as a pre-emptor, made an application for pre-emption in the year 1979 under section 8 of the Land Act (hereinafter referred to as the said application) in respect of the lands mentioned in the schedule of the said application, on the ground that the pre-emptor/petitioner was a co-sharer of the holding in question. This matter was brought to tins Court in revision earlier. A. K. Nandi-J (as His Lordship then was) by an order dated 18th of June, 1990 had set aside the order of the Court below and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Court for a decision in the fight of the change of definition of "Holding" as now occurring in the Land Act. A. K. Nandi-J directed the appellate Court to decide and pass a final judgment on the question whether in a pending proceeding for pre-emption under Section 8 of the Land Act, the change of definition of 'Holding as contained in section 2(6) of the Land Act which had come into force in 1981 would be applicable or not. After remand from this Court, the appellate Court on this question found in favour of the pre-emptee/opposite party by holding that the said application was not maintainable after the definition of 'Holding' was amended in view of the fact that the saving clause as contained in section 26(2) of the Revenue Act cannot save a pending pre-emption proceeding and consequent thereof, the appellate Court allowed the appeal fled by the pre-emptee/petitioner and rejected the said application. This order of the appellate Court is now under challenge in this revisional application.;