Decided on February 20,1996

SK.SEKABAT ALI Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



B.Panigrahi, J. - (1.)In these two revisional applications the parties being the same and the points involved being identical, they were heard together and are disposed of hereunder.
(2.)The opposite party in J. Misc. Case No.94 filed an application under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act for pre-emption of Plot No.1333 of mouja uttar sonamui under Khatian No. 686. The case of opposite party in his application under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is as follows:- That the lands measuring 10 decimals appartaining to R.S. Khatian No.686 originally belonged to Sk. Md. Musa who gifted away the to his wife Masidnnesha. Donee after enjoying properties, for sometime again gave away the property to her sons Sk. Saidul Islam and Sk. Mahinuddin under registered gift deed dated 17.10.81. The two brothers sold the properties under the registered sale deed dated 7.1.84 to the revisional petitioners. The pre-emptor has alleged in his application, that he being the co-sharer and adjacent raiyat possessing land in Plot No. 1334 is entitled to pre-empt the land in Plot No. 1333 which allegedly was conveyed to the revision petitioners. It is further stated that the pre-emptees not being the contiguous owner also cannot claim the land covered under Plot No. 1333. The learned 1st Munsif at Tamluk allowed the application for pre-emption. Being aggrieved by such judgement, the pre-emptees had filed an appeal before the learned District Judge, Midnapur which was eventually transferred to the 6th Court of Additional District Judge. The Additional District Judge also has affirmed the findings of the learned Munsif in Misc. Appeal No.7/ 90 and has however, dismissed the appeal. Therefore, being aggrieved by the affirming judgement of the learned Additional District Judge the pre-emptee filed this revisional application.
(3.)Mr. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued to support of the revision case. He indicated that his clients having purchased the entire holding belonging to the vendors, such petition claiming pre-emption at the instance of the opposite party is untenable and not maintainable in law. In support of his stand, he relied on a decision reported in AIR 1979 Cal. 174 in the case of Saranan Mondol v Bejoy Bhushan Ghosh. It is no doubt true that the single bench of this Court held that if the entire holding is conveyed to a person it would not come within the mischief of section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. But here Mr. A.N. Saha, the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party-pre-emptor has invited my attention to the definition of "holding" after amendment of West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The definition of holding has been, stated in the Act under section 2(6) of the Act "land or lands held by a raiyat and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue". The said definition has undergone drastic amendment with effect from 14th April. 1981 and the words "and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue" have been deleted. This Court has more often than not considered the scope and ambit of the definition of "holding". In the case of Debendra Nath Karak v Rekha Pal. 1986(1) Cal. law Journal, 227 it has been held that a raiyat may have lands in deferent Districts in West Bengal. All his lands taken together would constitute a single holding. It is not necessary that all those lands would bear the same revenue unit. Therefore, in the instant case, it is to be considered whether the vendor of the pre-emptee had any other land apart from the Plot No. 1333.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.