SUJOY KUMAR SAMANTA Vs. TARAPADA ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order No. 59 dtd. 12/12/2018 passed by the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court Arambagh , Hooghly in Pre-emption Misc. Case No. 8/2013 , present revisional application has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Pre-emptor 's/opposite party 's case in a nutshel is that "Ka " schedule suit property to the plaint was purchased by the pre-emptor Tarapada Roy from Krishna Chandra Mondal and others, through a registered deed dated 5. 5.2004. The "Ka-1 " schedule to the plaint is adjacent the pre-emptor 's "Ka " schedule land. Pre-emptor claimed that he is also adjoining owner of "Kha " schedule property to the plaint. Pre-emptor 's vendor Krishna Chandra Mondal without giving any intimation to the pre-emptor, surreptitiously sold "Ka-1 " and "Kha " schedule property in favour of petitioner herein/purchaser by a registered deed dtd. 29/11/2012. Aforesaid petitioner/purchaser namely Sujoy Kumar Samanta was neither a co-sharer nor an adjacent owner and he is totally a stranger purchaser in respect of "Ka-1 " and "Kha " schedule property. Accordingly pre-emptor Tarapada Roy filed pre-emption case No. 8/2013 under sec. 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955. Be it mentioned that according to plaint, pre-emptor 's "Ka " schedule property is comprising of 5 1/2 satak of land out of total 36 satak of land in plot No. 587. Purchaser 's "Ka-1 " schedule property is comprising of 3 satak in said plot No. 587 and "Kha " schedule property is measuring 4 1/2 satak in plot No. 586.

(3.) Petitioner herein as opposite party appeared in that pre-emption case and filed written statement and denied all allegations made in the pre-emption application. His positive case is that aforesaid "Ka-1 " and "Kha " schedule properties are demarked properly and he purchased the said property by a registered deed which was executed on 29/11/2012 and was registered on 3/12/2012, on payment of consideration prices of 1,32,500 and after purchase, he became the co sharer of the suit property. His further case is that petitioner is neither adjoining land owner nor co sharer in respect of the suit property and as such petitioner does not have any right to pray for pre-emption.