The court interpreted Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act broadly to allow co-sharers to claim preemption even if the entire share in a plot of land is transferred.

Harish Tandon, J.

This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated 18th September, 2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Burdwan at Katwa in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 11 of 2011 reversing the judgment and order no. 39 dated 27th May, 2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Katwa in Miscellaneous (P) Case No. 14 of 2006.

2. The opposite party no. 1 filed an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 seeking preemption claiming himself to be the co-sharer in respect of a plot of land.

3. The case made out in the application under Section 8 of the said Act is that a co-sharer has transferred his entire share in the plot of land to a stranger, the petitioner herein, on valuable consideration mentioned in the deed. A plea was taken as defence before the Trial Court that if the entire share is transferred by the co-sharer, then the preemption under Section 8 of the said Act is not maintainable.

4. The Trial Court appears to have relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in case of Kinkar Mahato & Ors. v. Sahan Mahato & Ors. reported in 2005 (3) ICC 7, wherein it is held that unless a portion of the share or the interest in the plot of land is transferred by the co-sharer, the preemption application under the aforesaid provision is not maintainable. The Trial Court dismissed the said application holding that the co-sharer has transferred his entire share in the said plot of land.

5. The order of the Trial Court is carried to the Appellate Court and by the impugned order the judgment and order of the Trial Court is reversed; as a consequence whereof the preemption application stood allowed.

6. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner agitates the same point before this Court taking aid of the judgment rendered in case of Kinkar Mahato (supra).

7. This Court had an occasion to deal with the similar and identical points in case of Biswanath Sarkar & Anr. v. Sunit Kumar Saha reported in (2013) 3 WBLR (Cal) 271and held that the incorporation of the word "or" in between the words "portion" and "share" imbibes two eventualities; firstly where a portion of a plot of land of a raiyat is transferred and secondly where a share of a plot of land of a raiyat is transferred.

8. This Court held that the restrictive interpretation as assigned in case of Kinkar Mahato (supra) is not in consonance with the legislative intent and the preemption cannot be restricted only in case where a portion of a share of a plot of land is transferred by a raiyat. The object behind the incorporation of Section 8 of the said Act is to avoid the fragmentation of the plot of land and to give right to the co-sharer to claim a preemption, in the event a fraction of the share or the share in its entirety is transferred to a stranger.

9. The Appellate Court have relied upon the said judgment rendered in case of Biswanath Sarkar (supra) and held that the application for preemption is maintainable even when the co-sharer has transferred his share in its entirety.

10. The learned advocate for the petitioner could not impress the Court to take a contrary view to what have been taken in case of Biswanath Sarkar (supra).

11. This Court, therefore, does not find any ground warranting interference in the impugned order.

12. The revisional application is devoid of merits. The same is hereby dismissed.

13. There will be no order as to costs.