(1.) The certified copy of the impugned order which is filed in Court today by the learned Advocate for the petitioner be kept with the record.

(2.) The propriety of an order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Hooghly in Civil Revision No. 119 of 2007 is under challenge in this revisional application at the instance of the pre-emptee/petitioner.

(3.) Let me now consider as to how far the learned revisional Court was justified in passing the impugned order in the facts of the instant case.

(4.) An application for pre-emption under Section 8 read with Section 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was filed by the pre-emptor/opposite party for exercising his right of pre-emption over the sale of the suit property by the raiyat in favour of the preemptee on the ground of co-ownership. The pre-emptee/petitioner appeared in the said proceeding and is contesting the same by filing objection against the said application for pre-emption. The application for pre-emption has matured for hearing and in fact is in the peremptory board for hearing. At this stage, the pre-emptee filed an application challenging the maintainability of the said pre-emption proceeding as according to the pre-emptee/petitioner, Section 8 and Section 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act have no manner of application in case of transfer of any land which falls within the Urban Agglomeration.

(5.) In support of such contention, a reference was made by the petitioner to a reported decision passed by a learned Single Judge of this Honble Court, in the case of Swapan Kumar Kar and Ors. v. Salil Kumar Dey and Ors., reported in 2004(2) CLJ (Cal) 273 wherein it was held that Section 8 and Section 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act has no application to a transfer of any land which falls within the Urban Agglomeration.

(6.) The said contention of the pre-emptee/petitioner was not accepted by the learned trial Judge.

(7.) Accordingly, the pre-emptees prayer for rejection of the said pre-emption proceeding was rejected by the learned trial Judge.

(8.) The pre-emptee/petitioner was aggrieved by the said order. As such he filed a revisional application being Civil Order No.119 of 2007 before the learned Additional District Judge, 3rd Court, Hooghly.

(9.) The learned Additional District Judge rejected the said revisional application by affirming the findings of the learned trial Judge.

(10.) The propriety of the said order is under challenge in this revisional application before this Court.

(11.) Heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner. Considered the materials-on-record including the order impugned.

(12.) I have also considered the decision which was relied upon by the pre-emptee/petitioner in support of his contention that the provision contained in Section 8 and Section 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 have no application in case of a transfer of a land falling within the Urban Agglomeration.

(13.) Undisputedly, the suit land is situated within the Urban Agglomeration in the District of Hooghly. As such, this Court is required to consider the petitioners objection regarding maintainability of the said application by keeping in mind the aforesaid decision which was referred to by the petitioner as mentioned above. Accordingly, this Court has carefully gone through the said decision of this Honble Court.

(14.) After going through the said decision, this Court finds that the said conclusion was arrived at by the learned Single Judge of this Honble Court, by relying upon another Division Bench decision of this Honble Court in the case of Paschimbanga Krishak Samiti v. State of West Bengal, reported in 1996 (2) CLJ 285.

(15.) I have also considered the said Division Bench decision of this Honble Court particularly Paragraph-51 thereof which was relied upon by the learned Single Judge of this Honble Court in the subsequent decision.

(16.) Paragraph-51 of the said decision is set out hereunder: -"Having regard to