Tarun Kumar Gupta, J.

The petitioner pre-emptee has filed this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 19th of May, 2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge 14th Court, Alipore, District – 24 Parganas (South) in Misc. Appeal No.209 of 2010 by allowing the application for pre-emption after setting aside the order No.81 dated 15th of March, 2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division) 1st Court, Baruipur in Misc. Case No.1 of 2004.

The admitted position of the case is that one Akshay Kumar Mondal was the absolute owner of the property measuring 33 decimals comprising Bastu and Pukur in Dag No.3720 and 5695. He sold 10 decimals demarcated lands in those two plots to one Sankar Nath Mondal and also 8 decimals demarcated land in those two plots to pre-emptor Gopal Chandra Mondal by two separate kobalas both executed and registered on 9th of March, 1963. He also sold his remaining portions of demarcated lands to other purchasers namely Nepal Mondal and Bhopal Mondal. Subsequently, said Sankar Nath Mondal sold out demarcated portion of 3½ decimals of land in two plots out of his purchased 10 decimals of land to the pre-emptee Subal Mondal by a registered kobala dated 25th of August, 2003. Gopal Chandra Mondal filed an application for pre-emption (Misc. Case No.1 of 2004) claiming pre-emption on the ground of co-shareship as well as vicinage. Said application was opposed by the present petitioner pre-emptee alleging that as Akshay Kumar Mondal sold demarcated portion of lands to the purchasers including Sankar Nath Mondal and Gopal Chandra Mondal, neither of them was a co-sharer of the other. It was further alleged that present O. P. pre-emptor Gopal Chandra Mondal was not a co-sharer of Sankar Nath Mondal and that as the well demarcated portion was sold to Sankar Nath Mondal he had no co-sharer and hence Gopal Chandra Mondal cannot claim any pre-emption.

After contested hearing learned trial court rejected said application for pre-emption on the ground that as Akshay Kumar Mondal, the original owner, sold out well demarcated portions of land to different persons including pre-emptor Gopal Chandra Mondal and pre-emptee’s vendor Sankar Nath Mondal, Gopal Chandra Mondal was not a co-sharer of Sankar Nath Mondal. He also held that Gopal Chandra Mondal was not also entitled to claim pre-emption on the ground of vicinage.

Learned lower appellate court also came to a concurrent findings of fact that pre-emptor Gopal Chandra Mondal was not a co-sharer of pre-emptee’s vendor Sankar Nath Mondal as well demarcated separate lands were sold to both of them by Akshay Kumar Mondal. However, he allowed the claim of pre-emption on the ground of vicinage.

Mr. Hiranmoy Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pre-emptee, submits that admittedly the original owner Akshay Kumar Mondal sold out well demarcated portions of suit plots to both pre-emptor Gopal Chandra Mondal and pre-emptee’s vendor Sankar Nath Mondal by two separate registered kobalas both dated 9th of March, 1963. According to Mr. Bhattacharyya as well demarcated portions of lands were sold to pre-emptor Gopal Chandra Mondal as well as Sankar Nath Mondal there was no scope of being co-sharer by one to the other’s land. In support of his contention he has referred a case law reported in 77 CWN page 272 (Sm. Labanya Bala Debi vs. Sm. Parul Bala Debi & Ors.). He next submits that in order to invoke the right of pre-emption under Section 8 of the Act of 1955 the pre-conditions as embodied therein have to be fulfilled first. According to him, those three preconditions were that a portion or share of a plot of land was transferred, that there was a co-sharer of said land and that said transfer was made to a third party without first offering the sale to the co-sharer. According to Mr. Bhattacharyya if there is no co-sharer in the land then there is no question of first offering to a co-sharer for the purchas