PROVAT SAHA Vs. SOMA GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arises out of the judgement and order dtd. 28/1/2020, as passed by Learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Malda, in Misc. Appeal No. 09/2019 whereby and whereunder the said court dismissed the said appeal as preferred by the pre-emptee, the petitioner herein and thus affirmed the order no.24 dtd. 19/3/2019, as passed by Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court, Malda in Misc. Pre-emption Case No.41/2016 as filed by the pre-emptor under Sec. 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955(hereinafter referred to as the Said 'Act').The pre-emptee i.e. the petitioners herein felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant revisional application.

(2.) At the time of hearing of the instant revisional application, learned advocate for the revisionist/pre-emptee draws attention of this Court to the certified copy of the impugned judgement as well as to the order no.24 dtd. 19/3/2019, as passed in Misc. Pre-emption Case No.41/2016 by the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 1st Court, Malda. It is contended that while passing the aforesaid two judgements both the aforementioned courts have failed to appreciate that the present petitioners are not co-sharers of the suit property and thus both the aforementioned two courts committed serious error of law as well as of fact in holding that the petition under Sec. 8 of the said Act is very much maintainable. It is further argued that both the aforesaid two courts wrongly held that no partition has been made amongst the co-sharers of the suit property and at the same time the said two courts have wrongly held that the suit property which has been transferred to the petitioners herein is not a demarcated property. It is argued that before the aforementioned two courts sufficient materials have been placed to substantiate that under cover of sale deed dtd. 29/2/2016, which was registered on 10/3/2016 the suit property being demarcated portion of the suit plot was transferred to the petitioners by their vendor(s) and therefore both the aforesaid two courts ought to have held that the pre-emption application as filed by the opposite party herein are not maintainable in the eye of law.

(3.) In the course of his submission learned advocate for the petitioners places his reliance upon two reported decisions namely Naymul Haque @Nainul Haque vs. Allauddin Sk. Reported in 2019(1) CLJ(Cal) 488 and Dilip Kumar Dhara and Another vs. Ranjit Kumar Mondal reported in AIR (2019) Cal 67.