Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
HARISH TANDON, J.
Bablu Mandal & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Sricharan Mondal & Ors. - Opposite Parties
C.O. No. 2535, 2536, 2537 of 2016
Decided On : 06-10-2016
PREEMPTION - LAND REFORMS - SINGLE TRANSACTION - CO-SHARER - MISJOINDER OF PARTIES - APPLICABILITY OF ORDER 22 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE:
Fact of the Case:
Three revisional applications were filed by the petitioners claiming preemption rights under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, against the sale of agricultural land to different parties by the same vendor through three separate sale deeds executed on the same date.
Finding of the Court:
1. The execution of three sale deeds on the same day, divesting the entire plot of land, constitutes a single transaction. 2. The sale of well-demarcated portions of a plot of land by a single owner does not result in the purchaser becoming a co-sharer with the original owner. 3. The Munsif, when dealing with preemption applications under Section 8 of the Act, acts as a Civil Court and not as persona designata. 4. Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to preemption proceedings, and the inclusion of other heirs by way of substitution upon the death of the original bargadar does not invalidate the proceeding.
Issues: 1. Whether the execution of three sale deeds on the same day, divesting the entire plot of land, constitutes a single transaction. 2. Whether the sale of well-demarcated portions of a plot of land by a single owner results in the purchaser becoming a co-sharer with the original owner. 3. Whether the Munsif, when dealing with preemption applications under Section 8 of the Act, acts as a Civil Court or as persona designata. 4. Whether Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to preemption proceedings and whether the inclusion of other heirs by way of substitution upon the death of the original bargadar invalidates the proceeding.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The ratio laid down in the case of Bhuban Chandra Samanta v. Jamini Bhusan Kar (1970 CLJ 349) was followed, holding that when a raiyat transfers the entire holding to different persons in specific shares or portions, the transfer deeds being executed on the same day and registered simultaneously on the same day, such transfers are tantamount to a single transfer in respect of the entire holding. 2. The principles laid down in the cases of Sk. Samser Ali v. Serina Bibi (2012 (2) CHN 694) and Subal Mondal (2014 (1) CHN (cal) 706) were followed, holding that when an original owner sells a well-demarcated portion of the land to different purchasers through different kobalas, each purchaser becomes the sole owner of the demarcated portion purchased by him and none of them becomes a co-sharer of the demarcated land sold out to other purchasers. 3. The decisions in Tarapada Shome & Anr. v. Parbati Charan Sarkar And Mohammad Jebbas Ali & Ors. v. Rahima Bibi And Mainuddin Mondal v. Samser Seikh & Anr. (1983 (2) CLJ 44) and Pasupati Mondal v. Debabrota Jana ((1999) 2 CLT 403) were relied upon to hold that the Munsif, when dealing with preemption applications under Section 8 of the Act, acts as a Civil Court and not as persona designata. 4. The decision in Probodh Chandra Samanta v. State of W.B. & Ors (86 CWN 294) was relied upon to hold that Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to preemption proceedings and that the inclusion of other heirs by way of substitution upon the death of the original bargadar does not invalidate the proceeding.
Final Decision: All the revisional applications were dismissed on the ground that the preemption application was liable to be dismissed on merit as the entire plot of land was transferred by the admitted sole owner by three different deeds executed and registered on the same day which tantamount to single transaction.
HARISH TANDON, J.
1. These three revisional applications are at the instance of the common petitioners asserting the right of preemption conferred under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 against each of the opposite parties.
2. The facts involved in these revisional applications are similar and identical and it would be a repetition of the facts if decided separately. Furthermore, the legal point urged in these revisional applications are virtually same and therefore, it would be convenient to take up these three revisional applications together.
3. The admitted facts in all these three revisional applications are that originally one Satya Priya Das owned and possessed all that the piece and parcel of agricultural land admeasuring 1.28 acres. By three several sale deeds executed on the same date i.e. 6th March, 1990 transferring, alienating and selling 64 decimals of well-demarcated land to Bhulu Mondal & Santosh Mondal who are the opposite parties in C.O. No. 2537 of 2016 at a consideration of Rs.16,000/-. He sold well demarcated 32 decimals of land to Shyama Charan Mondal, the opposite party in C.O. 2536 of 2016. He further sold well-demarcated 32 decimals of land to Sricharan Mondal, the opposite party in C.O. No. 2535 of 2016 at different consideration. Alleging to be the bargadar of the said 1.28 acres of land on Dilip Mondal, the predecessor of the present petitioners, filed an application under Section 8 of the said Act. It is alleged by him that he is a recorded bargadar and the L.R. record of right would corroborate such facts. On the other hand, each of the parties denied the status of the original applicant. According to them, there was no bargadar under their vendor and the record of rights produced by the petitioner is manufactured one. Admittedly, the original applicant of the preemption application died on 9th January, 1996 and an application for substitution of his heir is taken out which was allowed by the trial court. When all the three preemption applications matured for final disposal, one of the heir namely Dilip Mondal, was nominated as bargadar on 22nd June, 2001 who deposed for and on behalf of the predecessor.
4. An argument was advanced before the learned Munsif that the preemption application is liable to fail firstly; that the entire plot of land was sold by three separate deeds executed on the same day in favour of the respective opposite parties which shall constitute a single transaction and, secondly, there was no subsisting right as bargadar between the period from the death of the original applicant and the appointment of said Dilip Mondal by the revenue officer and, therefore, the preemption application becomes defective. Ancillary the same, it was argued that all the heirs of the alleged deceased bargadar cannot be substituted in view of the provisions contained under Section 15A of the Act and the application therefor is bad for misjoinder of parties thirdly; the right of preemption should not only exist on the date of institution of the proceeding but must continue till the final order is passed. Since there was no bargadar between the interregnum period from 09.01.1996 when the original applicant dies and 22nd July, 2001, when the revenue officer nominated one of the heir, the preemption application is liable to fail.
5. The Trial Court dismissed the said application for preemption solely on the ground that if the entire plot of land is transferred even by executing and registering three several deeds in favour of different persons, it would constitute a single transaction. The plea that the right as bargadar was extinguished upon the death of the original applicant was negatived and another plea that the proceeding is bad for misjoinder as the provision contained under Order 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable, was also turned down.
6. The order of the Munsif was carried to the District Judge, Murshidabad who transferred the said appeal to the Additi
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
