NANDARANI BHANDARI Vs. PRATIMA BHANDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

(2.) The facts, very briefly, are as follows : The petitioner filed an application for pre-emption under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 being Miscellaneous Case No. 25 of 1998 against the opposite parties praying, inter alia, for an order of pre-emption in respect of the disputed property sold by the opposite party No. 2 to the opposite party No. 1 by a Deed of Conveyance dated 21.09.1998. The disputed property is a land measuring two sataks along with other alleged rights and privileges. The petitioners have alleged that the opposite party No. 2 out of his holding sold two sataks of land to the opposite party No. 1 by a registered Deed of Conveyance dated 21.09.1998 and that the petitioners are the owners of the land contiguous South to the disputed property and are entitled to pre-emption of the ground of his vicinage. That the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement in the said proceeding alleging, inter alia, that though there was a Deed of Partition it cannot be said that there Was partition by metes and bounds i.e. by measurement among the co-sharers and it cannot be said that the petitioners are the contiguous owners. That the opposite parties further alleged that the description of the property given in the schedule to the application for pre-emption is vague and indefinite.

(3.) That in the said proceeding the petitioners filed an application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for appointment of survey passed Advocate local investigation Commissioner in respect of the points mentioned in the schedule to the said application. The petitioners stated in the said application that the opposite parties in their written objection against the application for preemption have disputed the schedule of the application for pre-emption and to elucidate the matter in dispute and also to ascertain the boundary of the petitioners and to bring a true picture before the learned Court a local investigation commission is required to be held. That the opposite party filed an objection to the said application for local investigation. That by order dated 3.4.2001 the learned Trial Court allowed the application under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. by holding inter alia, that from the written objection filed by the opposite parties it appears that they have denied the petitioners' claim for pre-emption on the ground of vicinage, that from the xerox copy of the Deed of Partition it appears that there has been a partition of plot No. 511 and at this stage it cannot be determined whether the Deed is a partition or not and to bring a true picture and also for proper adjudication of the dispute involved in the case the petition for local investigation should be allowed.