1. THIS Rule is directed against the order dated 4ui January., ism, passed pre-emption Appeal No,. 1 to 1969 by the learned Munsif, Dantan, reversing the order passia by the revenue Officer, Contai, in Pre-emption case No. 38 of 1966. the petitioner in the mstani rule is the pre-emptee and the opposite party made an application for pre-emption against the petitioner on the ground of vichange under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. It has been held by the learned Munsif in disposing of the said pre-emptiom appeal No. 1 of 1969 that the applicant, held the contiguous plots of lands in respect of the lands sought to be pre-empted excepting four plots, namely; plots nos. 565, 665, 662 (3330 and 661. The said four plots were not contiguous plots and pre-emption was not allowed in respect of those lands but in respect of other lands the application for pre-emption was allowed.

2. MR. Mitter, learned Advocate appearing for me petitioner Challagenged this appeareorder or pre-emption on four grounds. Mr. Mitter Comenue that the appreciate court having Nela that the tana covered by the documents of transfer were not similar and the price of such lands also vanea, the lea