- (1.) THIS Rule was obtained by the petitioner against an order passed by the Additional District judge, Second Court, Midnapore, where by the appeal filed by him against order of rejection of his application for preemption was dismissed.
(2.) THE facts are as follows : The petitioner filed an application for preemption of the disputed plots as an adjacent holder against the opposite party no. 1. The learned S. L. R. O. (S) Midnapore found that the land of the entire holding was transferred and on that basis the application was rejected by order dated March 28, 1972. An appeal was taken by the petitioner against the said order before the Additional District magistrate, Midnapore incharge of land Reforms. While the appeal was pending, the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act XII of 1972 came into force and was published in calcutta Gazette on May 4, 1972. Section 8 of the said Act which was to be deemed to have come into force on february 12, 1971, provided, inter alia, for insertion of sub-section (7) after sub-section (6) of section 9 of the parent Act. The sub-section is as follows : " (7) Every appeal pending before an Additional District Magistrate at the commencement of section 8 of the West Bengal Land reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972, shall, on such commencement, stand transferred to, and be disposed of by, the District Judge having jurisdiction in relation to the area in which the land is situated and on such transfer every such appeal shall be dealt with from the stage at which it was so transferred and shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Act, as amended by the West bengal Land Reforms (Amendment)Act, 1972".
(3.) BY reason of the aforesaid provisions it was contended that the District judge was the tribunal which only could dispose of the appeal but instead it was transferred by him to the Additional district Judge, Midnapore, who disposed the appeal by his order dated may 11, 1973. The petitioner has obtained the Rule against the said decision contending that in view of subsection (7) to section 9 as amended, the Additional District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear or dispose of the appeal. Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Panda, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the District judge of Midnapore was the only authority to hear and dispose of the appeal under the law and accordingly the order of the Additional District Judge was without jurisdiction.;