The interpretation of the limitation period for filing an application for pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, and the determination of contiguous ownership in pre-emption cases.

Prasenjit Mandal, J.

1. THIS revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated December 22, 2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Cooch Behar in Misc. Appeal No.7 of 2003 thereby setting aside the judgment and order dated July 15, 2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Additional Court Sadar, Cooch Behar in Misc. Case No.1 of 2002. THIS application is at the instance of the pre-emptors and their case is that they have lands adjoining to the land-inquestion and at such they want to pre-empt the land in question.

2. ACCORDINGLY, they filed the pre-emption case before the concerned learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) and the said pre-emption Case No. 1 of 2002 was allowed on contest. The opposite party nos.1 and 2 preferred an appeal being Misc. appeal No.7 of 2003 and that misc. appeal was allowed thereby a reversing the order of pre-emption passed by the learned Trial Judge. Being aggrieved, the pre-emptors have preferred this revisional application. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on going through the materials on record, I find that the pre-emptors have proved that they are the owners of a portion of the lands comprising Plot Nos.3414, 3415, 3420, and 3389 purchased by the sale deeds marked Ext.1 and 1/A. There is no dispute about it. The land in question comprises the Plot No.3390 and from the evidence on record, it has been proved that the said plot comprises 28 decimals of land in total and out of them, the pre-emptee, that is, the opposite party No.1 has purchased 23 decimals of land and this portion of the land has been properly described in Schedule C to the application. Therefore, it has been proved that a portion of the land in case has been transferred by way of sale by the opposite parties 3, 4 and 5 in favour of the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.2, son of the opposite party No.1 is the subsequent transferee from the opposite party No.1. In order to pre-empt the land in case, the pre-emptors have deposited the consideration money along with ten per cent of the same and there is no dispute about these facts. Upon analysis of the evidence, the learned Trial Judge has allowed the application for preemption holding that the pre-emptors are the contiguous landowners having the longest boundary and that the opposite party No.1 has no land nearby the land in case. The pre-emptors have complied with the requirements of Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and as such the learned Trial Judge has allowed the application for pre-emption. The learned Lower Appellate Court has allowed the appeal on two grounds, that is, the pre-emptors did not file the application within the time and that they are not the contiguous land owners. Mr. Bhudev Bhattacharya, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted on these two points only, that is, the application for pre-emption was filed within the time limit as per Section 8 of the W.B.L.R. Act and that they have adjacent lands of the land in question. Thus, he has contended that the findings of the learned Lower Appellate Court cannot be sustained. I am, therefore, to consider these two points in the light of the above submissions made by Mr. Bhattacharya.

3. SO far as, the ground of limitation is concerned, the adjoining land-owners have filed an application for pre-emption within four months from the date of registration. It is now settled law that an adjoining land-owner can file an application within four months from the date of completion of the registration. The registration is treated as complete when the deed is entered into the volume. In the instant case, as per evidence on record, though the registration of the deed in question was held on May 30, 2001, the said deed was entered into Vol. on September 19, 2001. The present application for preemption having been filed on January 17