The definition of 'land' under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 does not include 'bastu' and, therefore, a non-agricultural land cannot be preempted under Section 8 of the Act.

Asim Kumar Roy, J.

This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 29.11.2008 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 1 of 2006 by learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Raiganj thereby affirming the judgment and/or order dated on 8.8.2005 passed in Misc. Case No. 68 of 2004 by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Raiganj whereby the petitioners prayer for pre-emption in respect of the property in issue has been rejected.

2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, this revisional application has been filed.

3. Concisely stated the case of the petitioner is that his predecessor, Pandit Chandra Biswas purchased the land in issue by registered Sale Deed from one Aswini Kumar Biswas. Pandit Chandra Biswas died leaving behind his six sons, two daughters and widow - Sabitri. The petitioner is one of his six sons and heirs of Pandit Candra Biswas. A family settlement Deed was executed between Sabitri, mother of the parties and her six sons. Mano Mohan Biswas, the brother of the petitioner who is one of the six sons of Pandit Chandra Biswas sold his share of land to opposite parties Goutam Das and Baby Das by registered deed of instrument on 11.6.2004. The petitioner, Bibhuti Das being one of the six sons took out an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and the said proceeding was registered as Misc. case no. 68 of 2004 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raiganj. The matter was heard by the learned Munsiff and a judgment was delivered on 8.8.2005 thereby dismissing the Misc. case on contest. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner. The same was registered as Misc. Appeal no. 1 of 2006 and that appeal too was dismissed thereby the judgment and order passed by the learned Munsiff was affirmed. In this background, this revisional application is before this Court.

4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner invited my attention to the judgment and order passed by the learned Munsiff and has contended that the learned Munsiff has arrived at a decision that the property in question is a non-agricultural land and that is why that is beyond the scope of preemption.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on a decision reported in (1997) II CHN 20 and has contended that this Hon’ble Court as back as in the year 1989 has held that the "land" defined in the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 will come into play overriding the definition of "land" which is coming out from West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

6. This Court has declared the definition of land as contained in Section 2(7) and Section 3A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (3rd Amendment), 1986 ultra-vires of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and as a result of the said decision the original definition of land under West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 has been revived and inclusion tenancies held under the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 within the purview of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 has come to a halt.

7. Therefore, the first limb of contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner is that as the land is a nonagricultural land, the petitioner has filed the application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 rightly.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner is a co-sharer as well as a raiyat having his adjacent land to the land in issue and from that point of view his application under Section 8 of the said Act does not suffer from any respect. He has invited my attention to the provision laid down in Section 1(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act and has contended that the very Act is applicable in respect of land excluding the land situated within the Calcutta Municipal area. The land in issue being a land situated at Raiganj within the municipal area of Raiganj is well within the ambit of the said Act.

9. In course of his argument he has also referred to