(1.) Since common questions of law are involved in both these revisional applications, this Court proposes to dispose of both the aforesaid revisional applications by a common order.

(2.) These applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are directed against two appellate orders passed in connection with two appeals arising out of two preemption proceedings both initiated by the common pre-emptor against the common preemptee under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

(3.) The pre-emptee is the petitioner in both the applications.

(4.) The pre-emptor filed two applications for exercising his right of pre- emption in respect of two separate transactions by which the original raiyat of the land transferred two different plots of land being plot Nos. 2453 and 2454 to the pre-emptee, a stranger purchaser, on the ground of vicinage.

(5.) The learned Trial Judge rejected both the applications for pre-emption by holding, inter alia, that the pre-emptor does not hold any land contiguous to the plot of land transferred to the pre-emptee.

(6.) The said orders passed by the learned Munsif, 2nd Court at Arambagh in the preemption proceedings being Misc. Case No. 41 of 1989 and Misc. Case No. 42 of 1989 respectively, were challenged by the pre-emptors in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Arambagh.

(7.) The appeal which was directed against the order passed by the learned Munsif in connection with Misc. Case No. 41 of 1989 was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 8 of 2000. The other appeal which was directed against the order of the learned Trial Judge passed in Misc. Case No. 42 of 1989 was registered as Misc. Appeal No.9 of 2000. The case land which was sought to be pre-empted in Misc. Case No. 41 of 1989 is plot No. 2454. In the other misc. case being Misc. Case No. 42 of 1989, the pre-emptor sought to pre-empt the sale in respect of plot No. 2453.

(8.) The learned Appellate Court allowed both the appeals by holding, inter alia, that the pre-emptor holds plot Nos. 2452 and 2455 which are contiguous to the suit plots.

(9.) Challenging the said orders of the learned Appellate Court, the aforesaid revisional applications were filed by the pre-emptee/petitioner.

(10.) Mr. Basu, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioner, challenged the propriety of the impugned orders on three-fold grounds.

(11.) Firstly, Mr. Basu submitted before this Court that the applications for pre-emption are barred by the laws of limitation, as the said applications were not filed by the pre-emptor within four months from the date of execution of the deed of transfer by which the suit plots were transferred by the raiyat in favour of the pre-emptee. Mr. Basu pointed out that the disputed sale took place on 8th May, 1989 and 10th May, 1989 respectively and the applications for pre-emption were filed on 14th September, 1989. Thus, according to Mr. Basu, the applications for pre-emption are barred by the laws of limitation and as such, the said applications for pre-emption should be rejected.

(12.) In support of such submission, Mr. Basu relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of Amal Kumar Giri vs. Nani Gopal Paira, reported in 2004 (2) CLJ (Cal) 161.

(13.) Secondly, Mr. Basu contended that the finding of the learned Court of Appeal below regarding the contiguity of the land of the petitioner suffers from perversity, inasmuch as such findings are contrary to the evidence on record.

(14.) By referring to Exhibits 1 and 2 relying on which the learned Appellate Court came to the conclusion that the pre-emptor holds land in plot Nos. 2452 and 2455. Mr. Basu submitted that such findings of the learned Appellate Court is not supported by the said documents. Mr. Basu pointed out that Exhibit 1 shows that the plaintiff purchased undefined share in the said plot being plot No. 2452. Similarly, by referring to Exhibit 2, Mr. Basu pointed out that the pre-emptor purchased some interest in plot No. 2446 whic