ISHAN CHANDRA GHATAK Vs. SASADHAR MAITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution or India the petitioner challenges the legality ana propriety or the order passed by the additional District Juuge, Midnapore, the appellate autonomy, in Misc. Appeal no. 80 or 1975 dismissing an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the learned Munsil in a miscellaneous case started under section 8 of the west Bengal Land Reforms act, 1955. The Additional District judge continued the decision of the learned Munsir who rejected the application rued by the petitioner to preempt me lana being a portion of plot no. 579 in Mouza kalicharanpur within tuana Nandgram in tne district of miuuapure, sold by one Trairakya Nath many. The present application is being opposed by the opposite party purchaser.

(2.) BRIFLY stated, the facts not in dispute are tnat Trailakya Maity was a co-snarer raiyat in respect of a Jama consising or several lands including dag No. 579, already mentioned. He sold his share of land in plot no. 579 by a kobala dated 12th April, 1973 to the opposite party, Sasadhar Maity. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed an application under section 8 or the West Bengal Land Reforms act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for getting advantage of preemption on the ground that he has land adjoining the plot of land, a portion of which was sold by Trailakya. The application was opposed by the purchaser and ultimately the learned munsif found that the pre-emptor, mean, the petitioner, having no land contiguous to the land sold, had no right to pre-empt. According to the learned Munsif and the learned Additional district Judge, the petitioner having land to the north of plot no. 579 intervened by a portion of the said plot on the northern side held by a different co-sharer of the holding had no right to pre-empt the portion of land which was on the southern side of plot no. 579.

(3.) MR. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends mainly on the ground that the petitioner has the right to preempt under section 8 of the Act being a person possessing land adjoining the plot of land out of which a portion was sold to a third party purchaser having no land near about the plot no. 579.