ASHALATA BAIRAGYA Vs. GOPAL CHANDRA CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On June 7, 1966, one Kali Dasi Devi executed a sale deed in respect of 25 decimals of land in dag No. 610 and 47 decimals of land in dag No. 611 comprised in khatian No. 62, mouza Kashimpur, in favour of the present Petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 1,000 on the following date, that is, June 8, 1966, the said deed was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kalna. On April 6, 1967, the present opposite party No. 1, Gopal Chandra Chakravorti, claiming to be the owner of adjoining plots, filed an application under Sec. 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, before the Sub-Divisional land Reforms Officer, Kalna, for an order of pre-emption. The present Petitioner contested the said case.

(2.) The Sub-Divisional Land Reforms Officer by his order dated April 21, 1970, allowed the said application under Sec. 8 and made an order for pre-emption in favour of the opposite party No. 1. The learned District Judge, Burdwan, dismissed the appeal preferred by the present Petitioner against the said order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Kalna and affirmed the order for pre-emption made in favour of the opposite party No. 1.

(3.) Mr. Habibullah, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, has made twofold submissions before us. The first submission of Mr. Habibullah was that the holding in question did not comprise of agricultural lands and at least, partly it was non-agricultural in character. We are unable to accept this submission made on behalf of the Petitioner. In this case, the transfer in question and also the application for pre-emption were made before the enactment of the West Bengal Land Reforms Amendment Act, 1972. Mr. Habibullah did not argue that the definition of the expression 'land' in Sec. 2(7) of the Act as amended by the above West Bengal Act XII of 1972 would be applicable. Both the Sub-Divisional Land Reforms Officer as also the learned District Judge held the holding to be agricultural in nature. Therefore, we are unable to take any other view with regard to the nature and character of the land involved in the present proceeding. Thus, the first submission made on behalf of the Petitioner fails.