The main legal point established in the judgment is that Article 97 of the Limitation Act governs the period of limitation for filing application for pre-emption by the non-notified co-sharer under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.

Having regard to the fact that divergent views have been expressed by different Benches of the same strength of this High Court as regards the period of limitation that would apply to a pre-emption application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 filed by a non-notified co-sharer, the following question was referred to this Bench by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice on the request of a Learned Single Judge of this Court for its answer:-

"When does the period of limitation begin to run and when does such period end for a pre-emption application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 at the instance of a co-sharer on whom notice of transfer as contemplated by Section 5(5) of the said Act has not been served ?"

2. While referring the said question to a larger Bench for its resolution, the Learned Single Judge of this Court mentioned the following conflicting decisions delivered on the above issue by several Benches of equal strength of this Hon'ble Court, in the order.

3. In the case of Fuzle Hakani Vs. Sk. Arsed Ali reported in 89 CWN 1081, the then Chief Justice of this Court sitting singly held that where no notice of transfer on a co-sharer was served as contemplated by Section 5(5) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the period of limitation of three months for filing a pre-emption application as prescribed by Section 8 of the said Act was not applicable.

4. In the case of Sribas Chandra Biswas Vs. Jiban Krishna Biswas reported in (2012) 2 WBLR (Cal) 245, a Learned Judge of this Court took the view that a co-sharer on whom no notice of transfer was served, would get the benefit of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and it could maintain a pre-emption application within three years from the date of registration of transfer.

5. In the case of Mahaprasad Jana Vs. Lalit Mohon Bera reported in (2013) 3 CHN (Cal) 441, a Learned single Judge of this Court held that the limitation period for exercising the right of pre-emption is three years in respect of a non- notified co-sharer. In so holding, the Learned Judge relied on the decisions of this Court in the cases of Ram Kumar Kajaria Vs. M/s. Chandra Engineering (India) Ltd. reported in 76 CWN 426, Dwijapada Haldar Vs. Prafulla Chandra Haldar reported in AIR 1972 Cal 409 and Gangadhar Bhandari Vs. Lalmohon Mukherjee reported in (1978) 1 CLJ 451.

6. In the case of Ajit Mondal Vs. Tapan Kumar Ghana reported in (2013) 3 WBLR (Cal) 194, a Learned Judge of this Court held that a petition under Section 8 of the 1955 Act should be regarded as a plaint in a suit and as a consequence, Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act will have no manner of application thereto. The Learned Judge went on to hold that in case of a co- sharer of a transferor raiyat to whom the substantive right under Section 8 of 1955 Act has been extended, the period of limitation would not start to run if no notice has been served and/or despite exercise of due diligence by such co- sharer, the factum of the transfer remained unknown to such co-sharer by reason of any fraud perpetrated on such co-sharer or on account of any mistake. But upon the period of limitation begins to run, the co-sharer of a transferor raiyat in the relevant plot of land will have a period of three months within which the right conferred on him under Section 8 of the 1955 Act has to be exercised.

7. In the case of Tapan Kumar Ghana Vs. Smt. Sankari Bala Santra reported in (2012) 1 WBLR (Cal) 571, a Learned Single Judge of this Court held that Article 137 (erroneously referred to as Section 137) of the Schedule to the Limitation Act is applicable in case of a co-sharer raiyat who has not been served with a notice of transfer. Accordingly, the period of limitation in such a case of non-notified co-sharer is t