SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(Cal) 98

AMIYA KUMAR MUKHERJI
DWIJAPADA HALDAR – Appellant
Versus
PRAFULLA CHANDRA HALDAR – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ASISH KUMAR SANYAL, BANKIM CHANDRA ROY, BIKASH CHANDRA MANDAL

AMIYA KUMAR MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against an appellate order passed in an appeal under Section 9 (6) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. A short and interesting point arises for consideration in the present Rule is, whether an application for pre-emption under Section 8 (1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is liable to be rejected when a co-sharer of a holding made a short deposit of the consideration money at the time of filing such application.

( 2 ) THE petitioner filed an application under Section 8 (1) of the Act and deposited Rs. 750/- being the value of the land as stated in the kobala, hut he did not deposit Rs. 250/- being the value of the structure mentioned in the Conveyance because, according to him, there was no structure on the land, as such the value of the structure stated in the kobala was a fictitious one. The Revenue Officer dismissed the petitioner's application for preemption on two grounds viz. , that the required consideration money was not deposited by the petitioner and the lands were not agricultural lands. On appeal, the appellate tribunal found that the lands were agricultural lands but












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top