Siddhartha Chattopadhyay, J. - (1.) Having lost the legal battle in connection with pre-emption Case No. 12 of 2001 vide judgment dated 18.11.2011, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) (Danton) and in connection Misc. Appeal No. 14 of 2012 vide judgment dated 12.08.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Paschim Mednipur, in quick succession, this disgruntled petitioner again came before this Court for establishing his claim of pre-emption.
(2.) In the interest of effective adjudication factual aspect needs to be revisited. Petitioner's case in a capsulated form is such that the Plot No. 2126 at Deuli Mouza measuring 32 decimals of land, of which the 'Ka' schedule property is a part, was originally owned by one Matilal Das. The said Matilal Das transferred five decimals out of the said plot to his wife Sabitri Das on 19.04.1985. Thereafter, the present petitioner No. 1 purchased 3/4th decimals of land from Matilal Das and one decimal of the suit plot from Sabitri Das by virtue of two separate deeds which were executed on 12.10.1990. The petitioner purchased the specific demarcated portion of the suit plot and are in possession of the same by constructing a dwelling house. On 28.01.1994 Matilal Das, sold the 'Ka' schedule property to the opposite party No. 1, which was finally registered on 11.12.2000. The petitioner's claimed that being adjoining owner as well as contiguous tenant and co-sharer of the 'Ka' schedule property, he is entitled to purchase the suit plot. According to him, the suit plot was not ejmali property and opposite party No. 1 is a stranger. The said opposite party No. 1 transferred a portion of 'Ka' schedule property to the opposite party No. 2 and for which he has filed an application under Section 8 of W.B.L.R. Act.
(3.) The present opposite party had contested the said case by filling a written objection wherein she has denied all the material averments splashed against her. She denied that the claim of the petitioners as co-sharers, an adjoining land owner as well as contiguous tenant of the suit plot are not correct. She has made out a different case that 07.05.1999, she has transferred the 'Ka' schedule property to one Ranjana Sar and the said opposite party No. 3 has also filed a separate written objection and denied the petitioner's co-sharership as well as his claim as adjoining land owner. Opposite Party No. 2 did not contest in spite of receiving notice.;