GANESH CHANDRA PAUL Vs. MAYA PAUL & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, at the instance of the pre-emptor in a proceeding for pre-emption under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") is directed against the judgment and order dated May 18, 2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Uttar Dinajpur, at Raiganj.

(2.) The petitioner filed the pre-emption case, being Misc. Case. No. 90 of 2010 under Section 8 of the said Act, against the opposite parties for pre-emption of the sale effected through the registered sale deed No. 4039 dated June 11, 2010 executed by Ratna Paul, Bibhuti Paul and Adyanath Paul in favour of the opposite parties on the ground of being co-sharers of the suit land, as also as the adjoining owner of the suit land. The suit land in respect of which the petitioner has sought to enforce his right of pre-emption is .07 acres out of .014 acres of land at J.L. No. 146, L.R. Khatina No. 128,659 of R.S. and L. R. Plot No. 124.

(3.) The opposite parties contested the above pre-emption case filed by the petitioner and filed their written statement. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, by order February 17, 2014 the learned trial Judge allowed the pre-emption application filed by the petitioner, subject to the payment of balance of the actual consideration amount of Rs.88,000/- to the Court within thirty days from that date. The learned trial Judge further declared that the right, title and interest of the opposite parties, by virtue of the registered sale deed No. 4039 for the year 2010, do vest in the petitioner subject to the payment of the said remaining consideration amount and the possession of the suit land be delivered by the opposite parties to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the learned trial Judge, the present opposite parties carried the same in appeal, being Misc. Appeal No. 15/14 before the learned District Judge, Uttar Dinajpur, at Raiganj. From a copy of the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the opposite parties in the said appeal it is clear that they did not assail the order dated February 17, 2014 passed by the learned trial Judge on the ground that the suit land was not correctly described by the petitioner in his application under Section 8 of the said Act.