The court's clarification of its earlier order in the civil revision, intending to allow the pre-emption application and ensure all legal consequences ensued, was crucial in upholding the trial court's orders granting pre-emption and delivery of possession.

( 1 ) THE present revisional application under section 115 C. P. C is directed against the orders Nos. 40 dated 23. 9. 97, 49 dated 9. 3. 98, 50 dated 10. 3. 98; and 51 dated 21. 3. 98 passed in J. Misc. Case 32 of 1987 of the Court of Munsiff, Jhargram. The opposite parties filed that Misc. Case for pre-emption under sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act in respect of a transfer that was made in favour of the petitioners, on the grounds of both co-sharership and vicinage, on depositing the consideration money together with the solatium. The petitioner sought to resist the said application for pre-emption on several grounds namely that the application was barred by limits of time, that the land concerned was not an agricultural land, that the opposite parties were not co-sharers of the holding conerned, that they were not possessing land adjoining the concerned holding that no portion or share of the holding was the subject matter of the transfer sought to be pre-empted and that the opposite parties did waive their right of pre-emption.

( 2 ) THE learned Munsiff found that the application was well within the prescribed time limit, that part of the holding was the subject matter of the transfer, that the opposite parties were not co-sharers of the holding and that they had lands adjoining the concerned holding and that the land transferred was not agricultural land and that there was waiver on the part of the opposite parties in relation to their right of pre-emption, if there be any, in respect of the transfer in question. Accordingly, the learned. Munsif dismissed the application for pre-emption.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved the opposite parties preferred an appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 79 of 1988 and the learned Additional District Judge differed and concurred with some of the findings of the learned Munsiff. The lower appellate court differed with the finding of the trial court so far as it related to the nature and character of the land and also on the question as to whether a portion of the holding was transferred. The appellate court concurred with the findings of the trial court on the other questions namely whether the pre-emptors are co-sharers, whether they possess land adjoining the holding and the question whether they had waived right of pre-emption. In such view of the matter, the appellate court dismissed the appeal by its order dated 31. 7. 89.

( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by this dismissal, the opposite parties preferred a revision before this court being C. O. 3029 of 1990. This court was of the view that in view of the present definition of "land" as incorporated in clause (7) of section 2 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act with retrospective effect by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1981, bringing land of every description whatsoever, both agricultural and non-agricultural, within the ambit of the expression "land", the question whether or not the land concerned and the structure thereon is used for agricultural purpose is no longer material for the purpose of adjudicating a claim for pre-emption under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. In view of the definition of the expression 'holding" as amended by section 26 (1) (a) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act with effect from 14. 4. 81, this court was of the view that a holding constitutes only land or lands held by right and that there cannot be any co-sharer in respect of any holding.

( 5 ) SINCE there were concurrent findings of fact by both the trial court and the appeal court on the question of vicinage in favour of the pre-emptors, this court did not interfere with that finding.

( 6 ) THE dispute, between the parties before the revisional court was confined only to two points namely whether or not by the transfer sought to be pre-empted a portion of the holding was transferred and whether or not the opposite parties had by their acts and conduct waived their right of pre-emption. This court reco