Pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 lies only if a portion or share of a plot of land of a raiyat is transferred, and not the entire plot.

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. The present revisional applications are taken up together for hearing in view of the thematic unity between them.

2. C.O. No. 1793 of 2018 arises out of a judgment of reversal whereby the Appellate Court reversed an order, refusing pre-emption on the ground of contiguous ownership, and granted pre-emption to the present opposite party. Such pre-emption was granted in respect of a sale deed dated March 4, 2010 executed and registered in respect of 10 Decimals of land out of 17 decimals comprised in plot No. 159 under R.L. Khatian No. 32L.R. Khatian No. 229, within Mouza Sridhar Basan within Paskura Police Station.

3. C.O. No. 1794 of 2018 arises of an identical judgment of reversal, in respect of the other 7 decimals out of the 17 decimals of plot No. 151 as referred to above. However, in this matter, the preemptee/petitioner is different from that in C.O. No. 1793 of 2018, although the preemptor/Opposite Party is the same.

4. Subsequent to the passing of the pre-emption orders by the Appellate Court, the preemptees filed applications under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure in both the matters. Upon prayers for stay of the connected execution cases being made by the preemptees in respect of such proceeding, such stay was granted by the trial Court against which the preemptor as preferred C.O. No. 3793 of 2018 and C.O. No. 3794 of 2018 respectively.

5. Learned senior counsel appearing for the preemptees/ petitioners in C.O. Nos. 1793 and 1794 of 2018 argues that by virtue of two deeds of the same date, that is, March 4, 2010 the same vendor sold out different portions of the same plot in respect the respective premptees. As such, the said two sales conjointly comprised of the transfer of the entire plot of land held by the vendor/Raiyat. In support of such contention, learned senior counsel cites a judgment reported at (Sri Bhuban Chandra Samanta-vs.-Jamini Bhusankar, (1970) CalLJ 349 ). By placing particular reliance on paragraphs Nos. 3 and 4 of the said judgment, learned senior counsel argues that if, by separate deeds executed and registered on the same date, different portions, together comprising the entire holding, are transferred, the said transactions together tantamount to transfer of the entire holding. As such, in view of the entire holding being transferred, no application for pre-emption lies under Section 8 (1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "1955 Act"), which contemplates only transfer of 'portion or share' of plots of lands of Raiyats.

6. By citing another judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court reported at (Jayanta Kumar Jana vs. Mina Rani Panja, (2016) 2 CalHN 269) learned senior counsel for the preemptees argues that another co-ordinate Bench of this Court reiterated the same legal principal as to several transfers of different portions of the same plot on the same date, amounting to a single transfer, which disentitles the adjoining owners to claim pre-emption in respect of the transfer.

7. Learned senior counsel for the preemptees argues that in the event the entire plot of land belonging to a Raiyat is transferred, pre-emption under Section8 of the 1955 Act does not lie. This, he argues, is because of the fact that the said section envisages that only if a portion or share of a plot of land of a Raiyat is transferred to any person other than a co-sharer of a Raiyat in the plot of land the right of pre-emption arises. As such, it is argued, the transfer pertaining to a portion or share of the plot of land is a sine qua non for the entitlement to preempt under the said section. In the present case, since the two transfers-in-question conjointly gave rise to a single transfer, it should be deemed that the entire land belonging to the vendor was sold and as such the said pre-requisite of pre-emption was not met.

8. In su