Shib Sadhan Sadhu, J. - (1.) The petitioners by the instant Revisional Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seek to set aside the order dated 31st July, 2012 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Bankura in Misc. Appeal No. 04 of 2010 whereby and whereunder she affirmed the impugned order NO. 99 dated 15th December, 2009 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), First Court, Bankura in J.Misc. Case NO.37 of 1998 thereby dismissing the said Misc. case.
(2.) The petitioners filed an application under Sec. 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity) for pre -emption against the opposite parties in respect of the case lands on the ground of vicinage and co -sharership which was registered as J.Misc.Case No. 37 of 1998. The case of the petitioners is that they are the co -sharers in respect of the case plots 551 under R.S. Khatian No. 1841 and 551/1928 under R.S. Khatian No. 1840. They are the exclusive owners in possession of a contiguous plot No. 552 which was purchased by their predecessor -in -interest Subhas Kumar Mukhopadhyay, since deceased, by registered Kobala dated 3rd January, 1956 and after his demise the petitioners are in possession of the said land. The opposite parties purchased lands mentioned in the Schedule of the application from the sons of Late Ramshankar Mukhopadhyay by a registered deed of sale dated 12th January, 1990 registration of which was completed on 24th June, 1998. The opposite parties are the strangers. So the petitioners has filed the case for pre -emption. The Learned Trial Court refused the prayer for pre -emption holding that the case plot No. 551 is a tank and the petitioners are not co -sharers in respect of that plot, that the entire interest of the venders of the opposite parties in case plot No. 551/1928 has been sold to the opposite parties and that the petitioners are not contiguous land owners. The Learned Appellate Court concurred with that view. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such orders the petitioners have preferred the instant revision.
(3.) Mr. Basudeb Rakshit, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that it is surprising that although the Learned Trial Court took into account the judgement and decree passed in Title Suit No. 30 of 1990 (Exbt.6) and held that the petitioners are co -sharers in respect of the case plot 551/1928 but despite such finding rejected the prayer for pre -emption on the ground that the entire interest of that plot has been transferred. He further submitted that the said plot 551/1928 is unpartitioned and the petitioners have 1/9th share in that plot. Therefore, admittedly the opposite parties had no right to sell the entire interest of that plot to the opposite parties and as such it would be presumed that the venders of the opposite parties have sold only their interest in respect of that plot. So the petitioners being undivided co -sharers of the said plot of land, are entitled to have the order of pre -emption in respect of that portion or share which has been sold to the stranger purchasers (opposite parties). Thus, according to him, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. He placed reliance on the decisions reported in : (2012) 2 WBLR (Cal) 245 (Sribas Chandra Biswas & Ors. v/s. Jiban Krishna Biswas) and : (2013) 3 WBLR (Cal) 271 (Biswanath Sarkar & Anr. V. Sunit Kumar Saha) in support of his submission.;