BASANTI NATH Vs. PARITOSH KAMARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application arises out of an order dated 19th February, 2010 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 07 of 2007 whereby the First Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the learned Trial Court dated 30th March, 2007 dismissing the petitioner's application for pre-emption under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The material facts of the case are that one Danobari Nath owned a property measuring about .09 acres. Upon his death his wife and his three daughters inherited the said property in equal shares. The petitioner is one of the daughters of Danobari Nath. The property was subsequently partitioned between the petitioner on one hand and her mother and sisters on the other hand. The petitioner acquired what was referred to as 'Kha' schedule property. The respondent No. 2 being, the petitioner's mother and two sisters of the petitioner acquired six decimals of land referred to as the 'Ka' schedule. Subsequently the 'Ka' schedule property was also amicably partitioned between the respondent No. 2 and her two daughters by virtue of which the respondent No. 2 became the sole owner of the 'Ka' schedule property, her two daughters having relinquished their rights in such property in favour of their mother.

(2.) Subsequently the respondent No. 2 sold the 'Ka' schedule property to the respondent No. 1. No notice of sale was served on the petitioner who is the owner of the 'Kha' schedule property which it is claimed is contiguous to the 'Ka' schedule property. The petitioner filed Misc. (Preemption) Case No. 112 of 2001 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kalna praying for pre-emption of the 'Ka' schedule property under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act as a co-sharer as well as owner of contiguous land. Subsequently, however the claim on the basis of co-ownership was given up since admittedly upon partition of the concerned property, the petitioner ceased to be a co-owner.

(3.) The learned Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's case. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Kalna held that though the appellant claimed her right as contiguous land owner in the petition, there was no whisper in the four corners of the evidence led by her in support of the same. She came to the conclusion that there is no evidence on record, whether oral or documentary, to prove that the land occupied by the appellant is contiguous to that of the 'Ka' schedule property. For those reasons the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court by way of the instant revisional application.