An application for pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, is not maintainable in respect of Bastu land situated within the Balurghat Municipality.

Prasenjit Mandal, J.

1. THIS application is at the instance of the pre-emptee and is directed against the Order dated September 9, 1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Balurghat in Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 1991 thereby affirming the judgment and order No.30 dated December 20, 1990 passed by the learned Munsif, Balurghat, West Dinajpur allowing an application for pre-emption under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

2. IN 1987, the opposite party instituted a Misc. Case being Misc. Case No. 35 of 1987 before the learned Munsif, Balurghat for pre-emption under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 with an alternative prayer under section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949. The petitioner filed her written objection against the said Misc. Case denying the material allegations contained in the Misc. Case. Both the parties adduced evidence on the said Misc. Case and then the learned trial Judge allowed the said Misc. Case on contest on December 30/20, 1990.

3. BEING aggrieved, the petitioner herein preferred a Misc. Appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 13 of 1991 and the said Misc. Appeal was also dismissed on contest. BEING aggrieved, this application has been preferred by the preemptee/ petitioner herein.

4. NOW, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.

5. UPON hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on going through the materials-on-record I find that the learned trial Judge allowed the Misc. Case holding that the opposite party is a co-sharer of the land in case by purchase and that he has fulfilled the conditions necessary for the purpose of pre-emption as embodied in section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The Appellate Court has also endorsed the same view and in consequence, the Misc. Appeal preferred by the petitioner herein was also dismissed.

6. BESIDE the observations made by the Lower Courts I find that it is the specific contention of the petitioner herein that the land in case is situated within the Balurghat Municipality and the said land is surrounded by houses on all sides. It is also the contention of the petitioner herein that the land has been described as 'Bastu' and that the petitioner herein has her homestead thereon. For these reasons, the opposite party is not entitled to get an order of pre-emption.

7. WHILE assailing the Judgment of the Lower Courts, Mr. A.K.Bagchi, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the land in question is Bastu and as such the provisions of section 8 of the WBLR Act, 1955 will not be applicable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Punit Singh v. Sri Gour @ Gobinda Chandra Das and Ors. reported in (2007) 3 WBLR (Cal) 93 and thus, he submits that since the land in question being situated within the area of the Balurghat Municipality and described as 'Bastu', the application for pre-emption is not maintainable. ,

8. MR. Bagchi has also submitted that the Misc. Case for pre-emption is not maintainable. He has also referred to the decision of Gopal Sardar v. Karuna Sardar reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 3068 and thus, submits that the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is a self-contained Court in relation to enforcement of rights of pre-emption and looking to the provisions of the Limitation Act, it appears that when one applies for enforcement of rights of pre-emption under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, the proceedings initiated are in the nature of a suit. So section 5 of the Limitation Act is not attracted to the proceedings initiated under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The right conferred under section 8 is a statutory right and. it is, in fact, a weak right and so strict compliance of the provisions of section 8 of the said Act is required.

9. PER contra, Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharya. appearing on behalf of the opposite party has supported the impugned order; but at the same time, he