The amendment of the definition of 'land' in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, which excluded tanks from the definition, had retrospective effect from 12th February, 1972, and therefore, there could not be a claim for pre-emption in respect of a tank.

This rule has been directed against the order dated 26.2.67 passed by the learned District Judge, Midnapore, in Misc. Appeal No. 148 of 1975 arising out of the order dated 5.7.75 passed by the learned Munsif, Tamluk, in Judicial Misc. Case No. 59 of 1972.

2. The opposite party No.1 Mrityunjoy filed an application for preemption under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act on 27th February, 1972 in respect of Plot No. 278 appertaining to Khatian No.18/7 of Mouza Jashantapur and that gave rise to Judicial Misc. Case No. 59 of 1972. This plot has been recorded in the Settlement Khatian as a tank. This tank along with some other agricultural lands of Khatian No. 18/7 have been recorded in the name of Dukhabala as a raiyat during the revisional settlement operation. Dukhabala parted with her interest in respect of some plots of the raiyati holding in favour of one Motilal Mahapatra and his brother Jatindra in the year 1960. Mrityunjoy purchased plot No. 275 of the said Khatian from Motital by a Sale Deed dated 27.7.76 and as such became a co-sharer by purchase. Ballav Charan Maity and Bibhuti Bhusan Maity alias Batokristo (O.Ps. 2 and 3) inherited some of the plots of Khatian No. 18/7 on the death of Dukhabala and thus bec1me co-sharers of the said holding Ballav and Bibhuti sold plot No. 278 by the Sale Deed, Ext. 1 dated 12.2.69 to Bankim Behari Jana and Lakshan Chandra Jana the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 before this Court. After this transfer, O.P. No.1, Mrityunjoy filed an application before the Revenue Officer for pre-emption on 7.2.72 against Bankim and Lakshan alleging inter alia, that no notice of sale was served on him and that he was a co-sharer of the holding. Kanailal Jana, petitioner No.1 was subsequently arrayed as O. P. in that proceeding on the ground that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 had sold the property to him. It appears that an attempt was made by Mrityunjoy to add a ground in the application that being the owner of the adjacent land he was entitled to pre-empt apart from his right as a co-sharer. This Court disallowed the prayer (vide order dated 29.8.74 in C.R. 2489 of 1973).

3. Bankim and Lakshan filed written statement alleging that the disputed plot was not a raiyati land nor was it a part and parcel of any raiyati holding; that the application was barred by limitation and that the tank being excluded from the definition of land the application was not maintainable. Ballav and Bibhuti also filed one set of objections on the same line as indicated in that of Bankim and Lakshan.

4. It appears from the order of the learned Munsif that the controversy centered round the question whether the application for preemption in respect of a tank was maintainable in view of the amendment of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act in 1972. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners before the learned Munsif that the right to preempt vested in the petitioners on the registration of the document Ext.1 before the amending Act came into force and that right remained unaffected even after subsequent change in the definition of 'land' given in the West Bengal Land Reforms Act inasmuch as the application for pre-emption was pending since 7.2.72. The learned Munsif accepted the contention. He, further, held that tank and its banks could not be separated and section 8 of the Land Reforms Act is concerned with holding and not land simpliciter and in that view of the matter, he was of the opinion that the amendment by which tank has been excluded from the definition of land, has no bearing so far as holding is concerned. The learned Munsif having allowed the application, the petitioners preferred an appeal to the learned District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge having dismissed the appeal, the petitioners have come with the instant application before this Court.

5. The learned Additional District Judge agreed with the findings of the learned Munsif when he said that the vested right could not be taken away by the ame