SADHAN CH SAMANTA Vs. JALADI BALA DASSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Revisional application is directed against the Order dated 30th day of July 1985 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Third Court, Midnapore in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 48 of 1983 arising out of the Order doted 19th March 1983 passed by Munsif of Garbeta in Pre-emption case No. 17 of 19 78.

(2.) THE Opposite Party No. 1 Smt. Jaladi Bala Dassi wife of late Upendra Nath Khamrui and the Opposite Party No. 2 Shri kinkar Khamrui son of Late Upendra Nath Khamrui jointly filed an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms act, 1955 being Case No. 17 of 1974 in the Court of the Munsif at Garbeta for Pre-emption alleging that Plot No. 149 appertaining to Khatian No. 164/1, in Mouza Srimanipore measuring 1. 50 acres was contiguous to Plot No. 150 and Plot No. 330 on the north belonging to Smt. Jaladi Bala Dassi and Plot No. 136 on the West belonging to Shri Kinkar Khamrui. It was further alleged that the Plot No. 149 belonged to Pachkari Goswami, radha Govinda Goswami and Amar Krishna Goswami and by a Registered Deed of Sale dated 5th June 1974, they had sold the properties to Sadhan Chandra Samanta and others, the present petitioners, on a consideration of Rs. 6,999/ -. The petitioners were admittedly stranger purchasers and the Opposite Parties nor. 1 and 2 were related to one another as mother and son. On 19th February, 19 77 the said Jaladi Bala and Kinkar Khamrui had applied for amendment of the Pre-emption application which was disallowed by the Learned Munsif on 2 6th August, 1977. Against the said Order Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta was moved and C. R. No. 2 82 8 of 1 977 was obtained on 2 4th May, 1978. The said Rule was disposed of and leave was granted to withdraw the said Pre-emption Case and to file the same against subject to limitation. The matter went back and on August 8, 1978 the pre-emptors filed the application along with a prayer under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Learned Munsif allowed the said application under Section 5 read with Section 14 of the Limitation Act, condoned the delay and then disposed the application for Pre-emption on its merits in favour of the pre-emptors. Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred Misc. Appeal No. 4 8 of 1 983. By his order dated August 29, 1983 the learned Additional District Judge disposed of the appeal by remanding the case for Re-trial by the Learned Munsif. Again a Revisional Application was moved in the Hon'ble High Court which was registered as Civil Order No. 3045 of 1983; the same was disposed on July 2, 1984 by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil kumar Sen and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prabir Kumar Majumdar. The order of the Additional District Judge was set aside and the matter was remanded for disposal by considering the claim pre-emption on its merit. By Order dated July 30, V985, after remand, the Appeal was dismissed, subject to the modification of the Order of the Learned Munsif to the extent that the petition under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms act in favour of Jaladi Bala Dassi was allowed and the prayer for Pre-emption on behalf of Kinkar Khamrui was dismissed. Against the said final Order dated July 30, 1985. Sadhan Chandra samanta and others have since come up. The said Kinkar Khamrui has also filed a Revisional application being aggrieved by the said Order of the Learned Additional District Judge.

(3.) MR. Rabindra Nath Mitra, learned advocate on behalf of the petitioners, has made two-fold submissions in support of this Revisional Application. First, he had submitted that the application for pre-emption filed jointly by the pre-emptors was not maintainable in law. The Learned Additional District judge had proceeded on erroneous assumption that there was no dispute or conflict between the two. The two petitioners had separate and distinct causes of action. They could not have jointly claimed right to pre-empt the impugned transfer in favour of the present petitioner this who as owners of the two different contiguous plots had claimed independent rights to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, the two pre-emptors could not have been lawfully jojined in one single application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Mr. Mitra has next submitted that even assuming the two pre-emptors could have been lawfully joined in one single application, each one of them was bound to separately deposit the amounts of consideration money together with compensation. One single deposit of the amount had ,been made. The absence of separate deposits of each one of the pre-emptors; whose claims were antagonised to each other, was total, and in any view, their joint application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was bound to fail.