( 1 ) THE present application under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the judgement and order dated 14-05-2004 passed by the learned Additional District Judge and Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, chandernagore, in Misc. Appeal No. 92 of 1995 thereby affirming the judgement and order dated 09-02-1985 passed by the learned 1st Court of munsif, Chandernagore, in Misc. Case No. 49 of 1989.

( 2 ) THE opposite parties as pre-emptors filed an application under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 as against the present petitioner as opposite party No. 1 and one Gopa! Chandra Das (since deceased)', the predecessor of the proforma opposite parties herein. lt was claimed in the said application under Section 8 of the W. B. L. R. Act that the case plot being No. 1173 measuring 92 sataks originally belonged to Ashutosh Das and Dasorathi Das to the extent of 8 anna share each. Ashutosh Das died leaving 3 sons, namely, Santiram Das, Gopal Chandra das and Gour @ Gobinda Chandra Das. Among the heirs of Ashutosh Das and Dasorathi Das, there had been a partition of the case plot. The demarcated portion of the property was allotted in the manner is described in the petition. Santiram got 'a' schedule property, Gopal got B' schedule property, Gour @ Gobinda got 'c' schedule property and Ananta Bala Das got 'd' schedule property. The opposite party No. 1 got demarcated 'c' schedule land of the said case plot to the east of the 'b' schedule property, i. e. the portion of Sri Gopal Chandra Das. The opposite party Nos. 2 and 3, i. e. the sons of the opposite party No. 1 got 'a' schedule property, i. e. the portion of the said Santiram Das by way of bequest from Panchubala Dasi, the wife of the said Santiram Das, which is adjacent west to the 'b' schedule land of said Gopal Chandra Das, the predecessor of the proforma opposite parties.

( 3 ) ON 18-10-1986, the said Gopal Chandra Das without serving any notice to the opposite parties sold out his share of the plot and the deed was finally registered on 21-11-1989. The opposite parties being raiyats possessing the adjacent land of the land which was transferred by the said deed, filed a pre-emption application.

( 4 ) THE said Misc. case under Section 8 of the W. B. L. R. Act was duly contested before the learned Trial Court. The opposite party therein raised the issue that the case property is bastu in nature and as such, there cannot be any pre-emption in respect of the same on the claim of being contiguous landholders. Such pre-emption was sought to be resisted on the further ground that the petitioner had knowledge of the transfer and the misc. case as such is barred by limitation. Learned Trial Court by the judgement and order dated 09-02-1995 allowed the Misc. case and being aggrieved by such order, the said appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 92 of 1995 was filed.

( 5 ) THE learned Appellate Court by the judgement and order dated 14-05-2004 dismissed the appeal thereby affirming the judgement and order passed by the learned Trial Court.

( 6 ) MR. Ghosh appearing as learned Counsel for the petitioner has first raised the point that the property under reference cannot come within the scope and meaning of Section 8 of the W. B. L. R. Act and as such, there could be no application for pre-emption in respect of the same. Apart from inviting attention of the Court to the definition of "land" in the W. B. L. R. Act, 1955, Mr. Ghosh has invited attention of the Court to the definition of "urban land" as defined Section 2 (o) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation)Act, 1976. Urban land in the said Act has defined as follows :-

" (o) "urban land" means,- (i) any land situated within the limits of an urban agglomeration and referred to as such in the master plan ; or (ii) in a case where there is no master plan, or where the master plan does not refer to any land as urban land, any land within the limits of an urban agglomeration and situated in any area included within the loca

Click Here to Read the rest of this document