Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Harish Tandon, J.
Sabri Properties Pvt. Limited – Petitioner
Versus
CTS Industries Limited – Opposite Party
C.O. 561 of 2013
Decided On : 12-11-2014
LAND REFORMS - PREEMPTION - BASTU LAND - Whether preemption is permissible in respect of bastu land under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 - Amendment in the definition of land and raiyat - Effect.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a purchaser of a bastu land, filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of a preemption suit filed against him under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, on the ground that preemption is not permissible in respect of bastu land.
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court rejected the petitioner's application, holding that bastu land is not immune from being preempted under Section 8 of the Act, relying on the definition of land under Section 2(7) of the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether preemption is permissible in respect of bastu land under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955? 2. Whether the amendment in the definition of land and raiyat in the Act has any bearing on the issue of preemption in respect of bastu land?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The original definition of land under Section 2(7) of the Act, prior to the amendment in 1981, was restricted to agricultural land and included homestead. 2. The amendment in 1981 brought a radical change in the definition of land, making it inclusive of land of every description, including homestead, and assigning the same meaning of homestead as in the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953. 3. The definition of raiyat was also amended, excluding the word 'agricultural', making it applicable to persons holding land for any purpose. 4. The inclusive definition of land and the change in the definition of raiyat indicate the legislature's intent to give a wider meaning to the term 'land' and to expand the scope of preemption under Section 8 of the Act. 5. The judgments in Punit Singh v. Sri Gour @ Gobinda Chandra Das & Ors. and Smt. Tarulata Mahanta v. Sri Haripada Sarkar, which held that preemption is not maintainable in respect of bastu land, did not consider the amendment in the definition of land and raiyat, and therefore, cannot be said to have laid down the correct law.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revisional application, holding that the Trial Court did not commit any error in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Harish Tandon, J.
1. This revisional application is directed against an order dated 28th January, 2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Howrah in L.R. Misc. Case No. 3 of 2013 by which an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is rejected.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act came to be filed by the opposite party no.1 against the petitioner and the opposite party nos.2 & 3 as an adjoining co-owner having longest common boundary. According to the plaint case, a land measuring .48 Decimals comprising in R.S. Dag No. 260 corresponding to L.R. Dag No. 253, J.L. No. 51 under Domjur Police Station, District- Howrah, was seized and possessed by opposite party nos.2 & 3 and four other persons. It is further averred that the opposite party nos.2 & 3 were having .36 Decimals of land out of .48 Decimals and sold, transferred and conveyed .24 Decimals to the petitioner on 18th October, 2012 for a consideration of L 1 Crore. The petitioner claimed his ownership in respect of a land comprised in R.S. Dag No. 258 corresponding to L.R. Dag No. 250 under Domjur Police Station, District-Howrah on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 4th July, 2008. The Schedule appended to the plaint would show that the description of the land is shown as bastu land for which the preemption is sought. The petitioner appeared in the suit and prayed for rejection of the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure as the preemption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is not permissible in respect of bastu land. The Trial Court rejected the said application as it does not found that the bastu land is immune from being preempt taking aid of the definition of the land enshrined under Section 2 (7) of the said Act.
3. Before this Court, the argument at the bar is restricted on the solitary point as indicated above.
4. Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that prior to the amendment brought in the year 1981 giving effect from August 7, 1969, the definition of the holding has undergone a sea change. According to him, the definition of the holding under Section 2 (6) of the said Act is declared as ultra vires in a subsequent judgment rendered in case of Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samiti & Ors. v. State of W.B. & Ors. reported in 1996 (2) CLJ 285. He strongly relies upon a judgment rendered in case of Punit Singh v. Sri Gour @ Gobinda Chandra Das & Ors. reported in 2007 (3) WBLR 93 in support of the proposition that the preemption in respect of a bastu land does not lie within the ambit of Section 8 of the said Act. According to him, the judgment rendered in case of Punit Singh (supra) was accepted and endorsed in case ofSmt. Tarulata Mahanta v. Sri Haripada Sarkar reported in 2012 (3) WBLR 309 (Cal). Taking aid of the aforesaid two judgments, Mr. Banerjee would submit that the Co-ordinate Bench is bound by the judgment of the another Co-ordinate Bench and cannot take a contrary view. He thus submits that if the Co-ordinate Bench did not agree with the judgment of the another Co-ordinate Bench, the appropriate course to be adopted is to refer the matter to a larger Bench.
5. Mr. Shakti Nath Mukherjee, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the definition of the land which originally stood was amended giving a retrospective effect and it would be apparent from the said definition that the homestead is brought within the aforesaid definition by an inclusive clause. He further submits that the definition of the raiyat has also been amended and, therefore, a restrictive meaning as stood prior to the amendment cannot be applied. He thus submits that the bastu land is capable of preempt because of the inclusive definition of the land under Section 2 (7) of the said Act.
6. Before proceeding to deal with the points as canvassed above, it would be profitable to quote certain p
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
