PRADIP KR. LODHA Vs. ELAN ALI KHAN AND OTHERS
LAWS(CAL)-1996-12-31
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on December 06,1996

Pradip Kr. Lodha Appellant
VERSUS
Elan Ali Khan And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

GANGADHAR BHANDARI V. LALMOHAN MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
RAMALINGAM PILLAI VS. JAGADAMBAL [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN GHOSH VS. SISHU BALA ATTA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Basudeva Panigrahi, J. - (1.)These revisional applications are directed against the order passed by the 2nd Court of the Additional District Judge, Midnapur in Misc. Appeal Nos. 107 and 108/92 whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District Judge has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court of Midnapur in Judicial Misc. Case No. 42/92. The opposite party No. 1 has initiated a proceeding being Judicial Misc. Case No. 41/92 in the 2nd Court of Munsif at Midnapur for pre-emption under Sec. 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act against the petitioners as defendants 3 and 4 and the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 as defendants 1 and 2 respectively.
(2.)The short facts stated in the application, inter alia, was that the lands in Plot No. 417 in Mouza Rupnarayanpur belonged to the defendant No. 1 and the same constituted one holding. The applicants were the owner of the plot Nos. 418 and 419 and other lands in Rupnarayanpur-Mouza and had been possessing the same. Pmt No. 418 was situated to the adjoining west of plot No. 417 and, as such, the opposite party No. 1 was an adjoining owner of the holding of the opposite party No. 2. The defendant No. 2 had sold the land to the defendant No. 1 by a registered deed dated 2nd Dec., 1988 at a valuable consideration of Rs. 1 20,000.00 and the deed of conveyance was completed on 25th March, 1992. As such, the applicant being an adjoining owner claimed pre-emption of the same, and, accordingly, filed an application before the learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Midnapur. Subsequently, the applicant came to learn that by three (3) deeds dated 22nd Nov., 1991, 25th Nov., 1991 and 27th November. 1991, the defendant No. 1 sold different portion of the said land to defendants 3 and 4 respectively and had presented the document for registration on 30th Nov., 1991 showing fictitious-valuation therein. In order to avoid future complications. those defendants were made parties to the proceedings. The applicant had deposited 1,20.000.00 rupees together with Rs. 12,000.00 in the Court below It is c aimed by the applicant that he being not a ceiling surplus holder is, therefore, entitled to pre-emption right.
(3.)Opposite party No."i had, inter alia, filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure claiming that he had a very good chance of success in the proceeding and the defendants 3 and 4 knowing full well that the proceeding would positively terminate in favour of the applicant started construction in hot-haste just to- defeat the right of the opposite party No. 1. The balance of convenience and inconvenience is in favour of the applicant. Therefore, be prayed that the defendants 3 and 4 he restrained by an order of in junction from making any temporary of permanent construction and from going on with their construction on the land and/or from changing the nature and character thereof.
;


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