A co-sharer having land adjoining the holding out of which land is sold has the right to preempt under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, even if the land is not contiguous to the specific plot sold.

1. BY the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution or India the petitioner challenges the legality ana propriety or the order passed by the additional District Juuge, Midnapore, the appellate autonomy, in Misc. Appeal no. 80 or 1975 dismissing an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the learned Munsil in a miscellaneous case started under section 8 of the west Bengal Land Reforms act, 1955. The Additional District judge continued the decision of the learned Munsir who rejected the application rued by the petitioner to preempt me lana being a portion of plot no. 579 in Mouza kalicharanpur within tuana Nandgram in tne district of miuuapure, sold by one Trairakya Nath many. The present application is being opposed by the opposite party purchaser.

2. BRIFLY stated, the facts not in dispute are tnat Trailakya Maity was a co-snarer raiyat in respect of a Jama consising or several lands including dag No. 579, already mentioned. He sold his share of land in plot no. 579 by a kobala dated 12th April, 1973 to the opposite party, Sasadhar Maity. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed an application under section 8 or the West Bengal Land Reforms act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for getting advantage of preemption on the ground that he has land adjoining the plot of land, a portion of which was sold by Trailakya. The application was opposed by the purchaser and ultimately the learned munsif found that the pre-emptor, mean, the petitioner, having no land contiguous to the land sold, had no right to pre-empt. According to the learned Munsif and the learned Additional district Judge, the petitioner having land to the north of plot no. 579 intervened by a portion of the said plot on the northern side held by a different co-sharer of the holding had no right to pre-empt the portion of land which was on the southern side of plot no. 579.

Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends mainly on the ground that the petitioner has the right to preempt under section 8 of the Act being a person possessing land adjoining the plot of land out of which a portion was sold to a third party purchaser having no land near about the plot no. 579.

3. MR. Adhikary, however has contended before me that section 8 is not applicable to a case where the entire share of a raiyat in respect of the holding is sold out. According to him, only in a case when a portion of the land is sold by a raiyat being the owner of the entire holding, the person having adjoining land can claim pre-emption. It has also been contended by Mr. Adhikary that in the present case as the portion of the land which was sold was not contiguous to the land belonging to the petitioner, there can be no claim for pre-emption.

4. ACCORDING to the defination of 'holding' in section 2 of the Act we get that 'holding' means the land or lands held by a raiyat and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue. The definition clearly indicates that the holding may include one piece of land or one dag or it may include several plots of land. The holding is no doubt a unit for assessment of revenue. It cannot, therefore, be stated that in all rases 'holding' means one particular plot of land or a single plot of land. Coming to section 8 of the Act, we find that if a portion or share of a holding of a raiyat is transferred to any person other than a co-sharer in the holding any co-sharer raiyat of the holding or any raiyat possessing land adjoining such holding may apply for transfer of the said portion or share of the holding to him, of course, subject to certain conditions, as mentioned in the said section 8. The section clearly says that if a raiyat transfers a portion or share of a particular holding, then a co-sharer of the holding or a person having land adjoining such holding may claim pre-emption. This section goes contrary to the submission of Mr. Adhikary when he says that the holding referred to in section 8 mu