DEBU PRASAD BAG Vs. NIKHIL KUNDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application is directed against the judgement and order dated 17th April, 2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Burdwan in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1 of 2015 affirming the judgment and order dated 3rd May, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), First Court, Burdwan in Preemption Case No. 16 of 2008.

(2.) SECTION 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 contemplates three categories of person to apply for preemption if the plot of land is sold, transferred and conveyed to stranger. At the time of promulgation of the said Act, such right was conferred upon the co -sharer of a raiyat and the adjoining owner but subsequently by amending the Act, the right of a bargadar under the aforesaid provision was further recognized.

(3.) THE identical point cropped up before the Division Bench in case of Serish Maji -v - Nishit Kumar Dolui reported in : (1999) 1 CHN 365 because of two conflicting decisions of the equal strength operating in the field. Though in case of Serish Maji (supra), it was held that even if, a proceeding under Section 8 of the said Act originates on an application but because of the procedure for determination under the said provision, it is in effect a plaint and, therefore, the said proceeding is the original proceeding and Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply. On the other hand, the judgement rendered in case of Chandra Sekhar Sarkar -v - Baidyanath Ghosh & Others; reported in : AIR 1982 Cal 6 held that Section 29 Sub -section 2 of the Limitation Acts, 1963 makes the provision of the said Act applicable to a proceeding under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 in absence of any express exclusion provision. The Division Bench noticed the definition of an application and suit given under Section 2(b) & Section 2(1) of the Limitation Act and held that those are judicial proceeding not only for a complete remedy but also a part of larger action or original proceeding. Ultimately the Division Bench held that the law declared in case of Minor Subir Ranjan (supra) is a correct proposition of law. Finally the Supreme Court in case of Gopal Sardar -v - Karuna Sardar reported in : (2004) 4 SCC 252 held the proposition as laid down in case of Subir Ranjan & Serish Maji (supra) to be a correct proposition of law in the following: