An adjoining owner's right to pre-empt under S. 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is limited to the plot with which he has a common boundary and does not extend to other plots in the holding that he does not share a boundary with.

In this rule the petitioner-pre-emptee challenges an order passed by the learned Court of Additional District Judge dismissing the appeal filed by the pre-emptee against an order passed by Shri P. Majhi, Munsif, 2nd Court, Arambag, The opposite party purchased the property described in Ka schedule at the sum of Rs. 3,351/- by a Kobala dated 29.5.66 from Sri Sunil Kumar Singha Roy. The petitioner owns the property described in Kha schedule. Both this lands were recorded under two sub-khatians under the same landlord's khafian no. 5, so that the petitioner was co-sharer in the properly described in Ka schedule and they are entitled to pre-empt on that ground. Their further case is that they are adjoining owners and vicinage is another ground for their prayer of pre-emption. The opposite party resisted the prayer of pre-emption both on the ground of the co-sharership as also on the ground of vicinage, that, owner of the adjoining land.

2. The learned Munsif rejected the claim for pre-emption on the ground of co-ownership but allowed it in part on the ground of vicinage in respect (If petitioner's plot no. 539/1234 which adjoins the plot no. 1234, that is, included in the disputed purchase. The Court of first instance allowed the right of pre-emption in part and the petitioner’s application in respect of plot no. 1234 measuring about 0.19 acres of land was allowed. Against the said order the pre-emptor preferred an appeal which having been allowed the pre-emptee moved this Court.

3. Mr. Seth on behalf of the respondent contended that S. 8 applies where a share in the holding is transferred and not otherwise. He further argued that unless the entire share of the holding is transferred, the adjoining owner under S. 8 of the Act has right of re-purchase as provided in S. 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. It is argued by Mr. Seth that if a portion of the holding is transferred then the person who is an adjoining owner of such holding or any raiyat possessing land adjoining such holding may pre-empt the said transfer. In the present case the holding comprises different plot of lands, the petitioner kalipada Mal wanted to pre-empt the transfer of all the plots in the holding though he had common boundary with one plot only. It may be stated that the Court of first instance allowed the preemption in respect of one plot only in favour of Kalipada Mal and against that order an appeal was preferred Kalidada Mal, petitioner herein, however, contended that he is entitled to preempt all plots which are parts of the holding and though in respect of only one of the 13 plots in dispute there is a common boundary between he parties.

4. Mr. Seth appearing for the appellant contended that the petitioner pre-emptee can apply only in respect of the plot with which he his a common boundary and not otherwise. He argued that if the whole holding is transferred, S. 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act has no application. It is further contended by Mr. Seth that if there is a common boundary between the parties in respect of different plots; in 'respect of other plots with which there is no common boundary of the petitioner there cannot be any order for pre emption.

5. Mr. R.N. Mitter on behalf of the respondent however contended that the "holding" under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is defined in S. 2(6) as follows: - "Holding" means the land or lands held by a raiyat and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue." Keeping it in mind the definition of "holding", S. 8 logically provided, that if any raiyat possessing land adjoining such holding he may pre-empt all the plots, that is the lands which are assessed as land or lands held by a raiyat and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue.

6. Mr. Mitter relied upon the cases reported in 1977(2) CLJ 486 and 1977(1) CLJ 398. Mr. Mitter also contended with reference to the meaning of holding as defined in the Bengal Tenancy Act. Under S. 3 sub-s. (5) of the Bengal Tenancy Act “Holding" means