An undivided co-sharer in the plot of land, the portion or share of which has been sold to the stranger purchaser, is entitled to have the order of pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, as per the Amendment Act of 2000.

Prasenjit Mandal, J.

1. THIS application is directed against the order dated April 28, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Ranaghat in Misc. Appeal No.14 of 2002 thereby dismissing the said misc. appeal on contest.

2. THE opposite party filed an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for pre-emption against the petitioners in respect of the lands in case on the ground of vicinage and co-sharership and that application was converted into a misc. case being Misc. Case No.99 of 1991. According to the application, the lands in case originally belonged to Kalipada Santra and his two sons, namely, Narendra Nath Santra and Joydeb Santra. After death of Kalipada Santra, the two sons inherited the lands in case. THE opposite parties purchased Schedule "A" lands from Joydeb Santra and the heirs of Narendra Nath Santra by a registered deed of sale dated June 6, 1991. THE petitioner as a co-sharer of the entire Schedule "A" lands has filed the said misc. case for pre-emption. He has also contended that he has lands adjoining to the lands in case as described in Schedule "B" to the plaint. THE petitioners herein are strangers to the lands in case. So, the opposite party has filed the pre-emption case. Both the courts below have came to the concurrent findings that the opposite party is entitled to pre-emption. Being aggrieved by the order of the Lower Appellate Court, the petitioners have filed this revisional application. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that there in no dispute over purchase of Schedule "A" land by the petitioners from Joydeb Santra and the heirs of Narendra Nath Santra by a deed dated July 5, 1983 and the said deed was registered on June 6, 1991. The application for pre-emption was filed in the year 1991 and the same was disposed of by the learned Civil Jude (Junior Division), 1st Court, Ranaghat on December 11, 2001 allowing the application for pre-emption in respect of lands as described in Schedule "B" to the application on the ground of co-sharership. The Lower Appellate Court also disposed of the misc. appeal arising out of the judgment of the said misc. case on April 28, 2008, holding that the opposite party is entitled to pre-empt in respect of the three plots was described in Schedule "B" to the plaint on the ground of co-sharership. He assessed the consideration value of the three plots and the amount to be paid thereon for pre-emption. Thereafter, the present revisional application has been preferred. In the mean time, the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 has gone under amendment and the Amendment Act was published on March 14, 2001. The West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2000 has been enacted and the said Act of 2000 has come into force with effect from August 7, 1969. The misc. case for pre-emption was pending on March 14, 2001.

3. THIS being the position, according to Section 30 of the Amendment Act of 2000, the application cannot be treated as disposed of finally. So, the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2000 shall govern the case and it is to be considered whether the learned Lower Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the misc. appeal preferred by the petitioners. These observations are in consonance with the decision of Ramesh Chandra Pramanick v. Sushil Kumar Pradhan reported in 2005(4) CHN 658.

4. THE pre-emptor filed the application under Section 8 on two grounds, namely,- (i) being a contiguous raiyat and (ii) a cosharer raiyat. So far as the ground of contiguous raiyat is concerned, I find that upon analysis of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge and the learned Lower Appellate Court have held that the pre-emptor is not a contiguous raiyat. THE preemptor did not prefer any appeal or revision against the order of the learned Trial Judge