RANJAN KUMAR DAS Vs. GANESH CHANDRA MANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule is directed against an order of the Third Additional District Judge, 24-Parganas, in Misc. Appeal No. 405 of 1969, made on October 9, 1969.

(2.) The facts of the case are that on July 29, 1963, a sale of paddy lands was effected. The Petitioner before us claims that he was entitled to make an application for pre-emption.. On October 22, 1963, Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act came into force giving rights to co-sharers and other persons to claim pre-emption. The Bengal Tenancy Act was repealed on November 10, 1965. The Petitioner alleges that he came to know of the sale only on December 1, 1965. He made an application under Section 8 of the Bengal Land Reforms Act on December 7, 1965, which was marked as L.R. Case No. 109 of 1965-66 before the Sub divisional Land Reforms Officer, Alipore. This case was dismissed on August 1, 1966. The Petitioner preferred a pre-emption appeal being Appeal No. 3 of 1968 on January 8, 1968. There was an order for returning the Petitioner's application and he was asked to file it in the Court of the Munsif. The Revenue Officer, in fact, returned the application under Section 8 on June 11, 1968. On the same date the Petitioner filed this application in the Sixth Court of the Munsif at Alipore which was recorded as Misc. Case No. 118 of 1968. The miscellaneous case was under Section 26F of the Bengal Tenancy Act and was dismissed on May 27, 1969, on merits as also on the ground of limitation. The Petitioner then filed a miscellaneous appeal being Appeal No. 405 of 1969 on October 9, 1969. This appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation by the Third Additional District Judge, who did not go into the merits at all. Thereafter, on January 12, 1970, the Petitioner obtained the present Rule. The Rule was heard by Chakravarty J. on June 16, 1971, and his Lordship referred the matter to the Division Bench.

(3.) Mr. Biswas appearing for the opposite party No. 1 has argued before us that the Petitioner's application for pre-emption could be entertained both by the Sub divisional Land Reforms Officer and the Munsif. He relies on the judgment of Chatterji J. in Narendra Nath Ghosh v. Krishnapada Mukhoti, 1966 71 CalWN 506 . Chatterji J. has held that the remedy of a co-sharer to apply for pre-emption was not barred by the issue of the notification by which Section 8 of the Land Reforms Act came into force. His Lordship is of the view that, though Rule 4, was subsequently amended, the amendment came after the application in the case before him filed and the remedy continued in spite of the amendment. Chatterji J. has held further that in spite of the repeal of the Bengal Tenancy Act, if some one had acquired any right under the provisions of Section 26F of that Act, read with Section 6(2) of the Estates Acquisition Act and Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the Estates Acquisition Act, he would not be deprived of his remedy. Hence, according to Chatterji J., the Civil Court also had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for pre-emption.