SANJAY HALDER Vs. BUDHAN RAJAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application is directed against the Order dated 18.06.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Jangipur, in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 8 of 2014, affirming the Order dated 03.10.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 1st Court, Jangipur in Miscellaneous Case No. 12 of 2008.

(2.) According to the petitioner, learned Trial Court below failed to appreciate that in respect of land which is bastu in nature pre -emption application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is maintainable and that the learned First Appellate Court failed to appreciate that the petitioners are being the adjacent land owners can maintain the application for pre -emption specifically when a portion of the land is transferred to a stranger in respect of the suit property.

(3.) Before dealing with the points agitated before this Court factual aspects of this case is to be relooked. According to the parties, it is undisputed that the suit land was originally belonged to one Padmakamini Devi who had 30 decimal of land in plot of land bearing No. 870 and the said plot is under the jurisdiction of Jangipur Municipality. It is also admitted by the parties that Padmakamini Devi by virtue of a registered deed of sale bearing No. 1432 dated 18.03.1957 sold the said property to one Kalipada Das and his name was recorded in the R.S.R.O.R. That Kalipada Das sold the property to one Dilip Kumar Singha by virtue of a registered deed of sale bearing No. 1540 dated 20.02.1964. There is no controversy over the issue that Dilip Kumar Singha had possessed the said property and he sold 5.75 decimals of land to the petitioners of a Miscellaneous Case No. 12 of 2008 under a well -demarcated portion. Thereafter, he sold the said property to the present opposite party (Budhan Rajak) and it was registered on 31.01.2008. According to the present petitioner, he is a co -sharer in respect of the said suit land and he is entitled to get pre -emption being one of the co -sharers of the suit property. He also contended that although it is a bastu land yet he is entitled to get pre -emption. As against this, the opposite party contended that since a well -demarcated portion of a holding is sold in that case the subsequent purchaser cannot become a co -sharer in respect of the said property. He also contended that the bastu land is not pre -emptible.