SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.C. RAY AND S.R. PANDIAN, JJ.
Abdulla Kabir, Appellant
Versus
Md. Nasiruddin, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 525 of 1989 (Arising out of Spl. Leave Petn. (C) No. 4999 of 1986)
Decided on 1-2-1989.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Shankar Ghosh, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Rathin Das, Advocate with him, for Appellant; Mr. D.P. Mukherjee, and Mr. G.S. Chatterjee, Advocates, for Respondent.
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – Section 8 – West Bengal Non- Agricultural Tenancy Act – Section 24 – West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 – Section 6 – West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 – West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 – Homestead- Preliminary- Jurisdiction- Appeal on special leave arises out of an application for pre-emption filed respondent to pre-empt land sold to appellant Abdullah Kabir by a Kobala by a co-sharer appertaining to Khatian ground of his being co-sharer in said holding land in question was owned by son of Amulaya Ratan. Sarat Chandra Dutta was an agriculturist and he used to keep his agricultural implements in said property possessed along with said land other agricultural lands as agriculturist and in occupancy raiyati interest – During said property was recorded in his name as Raiyat sthitiban and classification of land was recorded as Bari homestead of said agriculturist – Held, Application order was set aside on appeal holding that land was non-agricultural land and Subordinate Judge had jurisdiction to entertain application judgment having been confirmed in appeal by High Court of petitioner filed an appeal on special leave before this Court been held that since judgment was rendered only on the preliminary question whether court had jurisdiction to entertain the application and the other issues raised therein were not decided by trial lower appellate court overruled the said finding but instead of remanding the matter to the trial court for decision on the other issues, disposed of the matter on merits whereas on other issues appellant might desire to lead evidence but that opportunity was denied to him appellant should be afforded an opportunity of being heard on the other issues. In that view of matter case was remanded for disposal – Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
RAY, J.:— Special leave granted. Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. This appeal on special leave arises out of an application for pre-emption filed under the provisions of Section 8 of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (West Bengal Act X of 1956) by the respondent, Md. Nasiruddin to pre-empt the land sold to the appellant, Abdullah Kabir by a Kobala dated May 16, 1974 by a co-sharer having 1/4th interest in plot No. 115/852 appertaining to Khatian No. 1944 on the ground of his being co-sharer in the said holding. The land in question i.e. plot No. 115/852 measuring 0. 3 cents was owned by one Sarat Chandra Dutta, son of Amulaya Ratan. Sarat Chandra Dutta was an agriculturist and he used to keep his agricultural implements in the said property. He also possessed along with the said land other agricultural lands as agriculturist and in occupancy raiyati interest. During R. S. operation also the said property was recorded in his name as Raiyat sthitiban and the classification of land was recorded as Bari i.e. homestead of the said agriculturist. On September 20, 1967, Sarat Chandra Dutta, owner of the said plot of land, sold the same by a registered kobala to four persons namely Sisir Kumar Mondal, Naba Kumar Mondal. Madhusudan Mondal and Purnalakshmi Mondal. Thereafter on October 28,1968 Sisir Kumar Mondal and Naba Kumar Mondal sold their shares to Nurunessa Khatun, predecessor of the respondent-petitioner. On the basis of this kobala Nurenessa Khatun became co-sharer in respect of the said land. After the death of Nurenessa Khatun her heirs including the eldest son, the respondent petitioner, inherited the right of occupancy as co-sharer. On May 16, 1974, Purnalakshmi sold her 1/4th interest to the appellant, Abdullah Kabir by Kobala (Exh. l(b)). It is the case of the respondent-petitioner that as no notice of the said sale was served on his mother, Nurunessa Khatun, he could not know of the said sale earlier. However, on taking certified copy of the said sale on May 3, 1977, the respondent-petitioner filed an application for pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act after depositing the requisite sum as required to be deposited under the said Act. This application was registered as Misc. Case No. 36 of 1977 in the Court of Munsif, 2nd Court, Bolput. The appellant contested the case, by filing a written objection contending inter alia that the respondent-petitioner was neither co-sharer of the holding nor an adjoining land owner. The disputed property is non-agricultural tenancy. The petition for pre-emption is barred by limitation as the respondent-petitioner was all along aware of the said sale and the story of his coming to know of such sale after taking copy of sale deed on May 3, 1977 was absolutely false. The disputed deed does not contain the recital that the respondent-petitioner was an adjoining land owner. The petition for pre-emption in such circumstances was liable to be dismissed. Three issues were framed by the Trial Court i.e. :
(1) Whether the case land is non-agricultural and whether Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act will be applicable in this case;
(2) Whether the petitioner was a co-sharer in respect of case holding from before purchase of the disputed land;
(3) Whether the case is barred by limitation?
3. The Trial Court held that the petitioner-respondent was a co-sharer and was entitled to pre-empt; the application for pre-emption was not barred by limitation as it was filed within a period of three years of knowledge of the same as no notice of sale was served on the petitioner-respondent. The trial Court further held that the subject matter of the sale was recorded as "Bastu" in the Kobala dated May 16, 1974 (Exh. 1 (b)) and "Bari" in the R. S. Record of Right (Exh. 3(h)) and though Sarat Chandra Dutta, the owner of the land was an agriculturist yet this homestead land being not included in the raiyat holding could not be treated as agricultural land a
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.