The date of registration of the sale deed is the relevant date for the accrual of the right of pre-emption, and the transfer of the entire plot of land to family members on the same date, when all three sale deeds were registered, would be treated as a single transfer, barring the right of pre-emption in favor of adjoining owners.

Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.

These three revisional applications are taken up together since the issues involved in three revisional applications are same and relates to sale of same plot of land purchased by the opposite parties in these three revisional applications by three separate sale Deeds.

2. Learned appellate Court in Misc. Appeal No.33 of 2007 reversed the order of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haldia thereby quashing the order of preemption granted in favour of the petitioners/pre-emptors and also rejected two appeals filed by the petitioners/pre-emptors against the order of learned trial Court passed in respect of two other purchasers i.e., minor son of Amar Krishna Panja viz. Subhankar Panja and his wife, Smt. Mina Rani Pradhan.

3. In the present case, one Bagala Prosad Pradhan was the transferor in respect of plot No.28 within mouza Dakhin Baisnabchak., He transferred the entire plot by three separate sale Deeds executed and registered in favour of the opposite party viz. Amar Krishna Panja for four decimals and three decimals to his minor son, Subhankar Panja and three decimals to his wife, Smt. Mina Rani Pradhan and all three Deeds were registered on 27th August, 1997. Learned trial Court allowed pre-emption against Amar Krishna Panja since the portion purchased by Amar Krishna Panja involved in P. Misc. Case No.72 of 1997 is adjacent the boundary of petitioners’ plot No.47 and 48. So far the portions purchased by his son and wife by to separate sale Deeds are not adjacent to petitioners’ aforementioned plots. Therefore, applications for pre-emption for those two shares involved in Misc. Case No.73 of 1997 and P. Misc. Case No.74 of 1997 were dismissed.

4. Learned appellate Court set aside the order of pre-emption against Amar Krishna Panja the pre-emptee and dismissed the appeals filed by Sri Jayanta Kumar Panja & others against Subhankar Panja and Smt, Mina Rani Pradhan on two grounds.

5. The first ground for allowing the appeal filed by Amar Krishna Panja and dismissal of two appeals filed by the petitioners/pre-emptors was that the transfer of three separate portions of the same plot of land being plot no.28 within mouza Dakhin Baisnabchak by three separate registered sale Deeds of same date.

6. Learned Court below held in view of different decisions of this Hon’ble High Court and Hon’ble Apex Court the date of execution is not the relevant date, rather the date of registration of their sale deeds are the relevant date for consideration. Learned Court below found that the entire plot was sold to the family of three members viz. husband, wife and son in three separate shares amounts to single transfer in view of the decision of this Hon’ble High Court and in case of such transfer of the entire holding the pre-emptor even if he is an owner of adjoining holding is not entitled to get an order of pre-emption in his favour.

7. The Appellate Judge considered the transfer made in favour of the three members of the family on the same date is a transfer in entirety and held since entire plot of land was transferred, petitioners/pre-emptors are not entitled to get an order of pre-emption in their favour on the ground of vicinage.

8. Dr. Mondal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners are admittedly adjoining owners. He submits that relevant date for consideration is the date of execution, not the date of registration of the sale Deeds.

9. Dr. Mondal submits in case of Amar Krishna Panja, (husband) sale Deed was executed on 26th July 1993 for an area of three decimals of the aforementioned plot. He submits there is part transfer and the date of execution being the relevant date. Learned appellate Court below ought not to have allowed the appeal filed by Sri Panja accepting the date of registration as the material date.

10. Dr. Mondal submits once the order of execution is accepted then there would be a partial transfer and the petitioners being the adjoining owners is entitled t