PRASANNA KUMAR GIRI Vs. GANGADHAR RAUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against an order of the Additional district Judge, Midnapore, dismissing the appeal filed by the pre-emptee in a proceeding under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The opposite party purchased for Rs. 2500/ -. 84 acres of land out of 4. 45 acres of plot No. 93 R. S. Khatian No. 33/1, Mouza Chhalaberia District Midnapore on March 22, 1965. On the following day on March 23, 1965, the petitioners purchased for Rs. 5000/- 2 acres of land of the said pilot No. 93 from the same vendor. There is no dispute that no notice of the subsequent transfer as required under section 5 (5) of the Act was served on the opposite party. According to his case, after coming to know of the transfer from the local people, he obtained a certified copy of the kobala of March 23, 1965, on August 26, 1967. Thereupon on deposit of Rs. 5000/- he filed an application before the Revenue Officer, Jhargram on September 15, 1967 for pre-emption under section 8 of the Land Reforms Act, 1955 giving rise to Misc. Case No. 74 of 1967.

(2.) THE petitioners before us filed a written objection to the application for pre-emption praying for its dismissal on several grounds. The records were subsequently transferred to the learned Munsif, Jhargram giving rise to J. Misc. Case No. 25 of 1973. On a trial on evidence before him, the learned munsif held that the application was not barred by limitation which was three years in case of non-service of notice under section 5 (5) from the date of completion of registration on April, 5, 1965 when the sale was completed. It was further found that the opposite party was a co-sharer arid thus entitled to pre-emption. The claim for improvements was rejected in absence of any evidence in support. The application was accordingly allowed.

(3.) THE petitioner preferred an appeal against the said decision under section 9 (6) of the Act before the District judge, Midnapore who transferred tine appeal before the Additional District judge, Second Court, Midnapore for disposal. The learned Additional District Judge affirmed the finding that the application was not barred by limitation and the claim for improvement was not established by evidence. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed. In the present Rule the petitioner who is the pre-emptee has challenged the propriety of the decision.