Parimal Kumar Chanda, J. - (1.) This rule has been directed against the order dated 26.2.67 passed by the learned District Judge, Midnapore, in Misc. Appeal No. 148 of 1975 arising out of the order dated 5.7.75 passed by the learned Munsif, Tamluk, in Judicial Misc. Case No. 59 of 1972.
(2.) The opposite Party No. 1 Mrityunjoy filed an application for pre-emption under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act on 27th February, 1972 in respect of Plot No. 278 appertaining to Khatian No. 18/7 of Mouza Jashantapur and that gave rise to Judicial Misc. Case No. 59 of 1972. This plot has been recorded in the Settlement Khatian as a tank. This tank along with some other agricultural lands of Khatian No. 18/7 have been recorded in the name of Dukhabala as a raiyat during the revisional settlement operation. Dukhabala parted with her interest in respect of some plots of the raiyati holding in favour of one Motilal Mahapatra and his brother Jatindra in the year 1960. Mrityunjoy purchased plot No. 275 of the said Khatian from Motilal by a Sale Deed dated 27.7.76 and as such became a co-shares by purchase. Ballav Charan Maity and Bibhuti Bhusan Maity alias Batokristo (O.Ps.2 and 3) inherited some of the plots of Khatian No. 18/7 on the death of Dhukabala and thus became co-shares of the said holding Ballav and Bibhuti sold plot No. 278 by the Sale Deed, Ext. 1 dated 12.2.69 to Bankim Behari Jana and Lakshan Chandra Jana - the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 before this Court. After this transfer, O.P. No. 1, Mrityunjoy filed an application before the Revenue Officer for pre-emption on 7.2.72 against Bankim and Lakshan alleging inter alia, that no notice of sale was served on him and that he was a co-shares of the holding. Kanailal Jana, petitioner No. 1 was subsequently arrayed as O. P. in that proceeding on the ground that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 had sold the property to him. It appears that an attempt was made by Mrityunjoy to add a ground in the application that being the owner of the adjacent land he was entitled to pre-empt apart from his right as a co-sharer. This Court disallowed the prayer (vide order dated 29.8.74 in C. R. 2489 of 1983).
(3.) Bankim and Lakshan filed written statement alleging that the disputed plot was not a raiyati land nor was it a part and parcel of any raiyati holding; that the application was barred by limitation and that the tank being excluded from the definition of land the application on the same line as indicated in that of Bankim and Lakshan.;