PASUPATI MONDAL Vs. SUBHRANGSU MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Rules were obtained by the petitioners for review of the order passed by me on 29th June, 1976 in Civil Rules Nos. 1945-46 of 1975. By that order the Rules were discharged. The proceedings arose out of two preemption applications and the preemption was allowed by the learned munsif and the order was affirmed on appeal. Before the learned Munsif a point was taken that the pre-emption should not be allowed as it would be in violation of the provisions of section 14-M of the West Bengal Land Reforms act. The learned Munsif found against the petitioners and held that by the pre-emption the petitioners for preemption would not be exceeding the ceiling provided under the Act. In the appellate court the only point that was taken was about the vires of the Act and the appeals as already noted were dismissed. No other point was taken before the appellate court. At the hearing of the Rules also no point was taken by the learned Advocate for the petitioners on section 14-M of the Act

(2.) IN the present petition for review the petitioner alleges that it would be obvious from the Nirupanpatra itself that the claimants for preemption would be exceeding the ceiling as provided under section 14-M and he also relied on the certified copies of record-of-rights in respect of the lands alleged to have been held by the opposite parties (claimants to pre-emption)which would nullify, according to him, the claim for pre-emption.

(3.) MR. Bhunia appearing for the petitioner in these Rules submitted that under the provisions of law before a pre-emption could be allowed the court is required to consider that the limit mentioned in section 14-M in not exceeded. This is a mandatory provision of law which the court is required to consider even in the absence of any pleading before allowing a pre-emption in view of the express provision of section 8. He accordingly submitted that in the order passed by me on June 29, 1976, there was no direction to that effect which should also be incorporated in the order. In support reliance was placed in the decision in Nai Bahu Vs. Lala Ramnarayan A. I. R. 1978 S. C. 22 in which it was held that a court cannot even pass a decree for eviction though on compromise unless it is satisfied that a statutory ground for eviction has been pleaded which the tenant has admitted by the compromise dispensing further proof of the claim. Further the court must be satisfied about compliance with the statutory requirement on the totality of facts of a particular case bearing in mind the entire circumstances from the stage of pleadings upto the stage when the compromise is effected.