The main legal point established in the judgment is the permissibility of pre-emption with regard to the sale of 'Bastu' land under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and the requirement of depositing the full consideration money and a further sum of 10% of that amount for a pre-emption application to be entertained.

JUDGMENT

Kausik Chanda, J. - This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been directed against a judgment and order dated February 28, 2007, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court II, Ranaghat, Nadia setting aside the judgment and order dated June 29, 2004, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Ranaghat, Nadia on an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

2. One Nirmala Bala Sen, since deceased, sought to pre-empt a sale made on October 17, 2000 by her brother Gopal Dey, since deceased. Before the Trial Court Nirmala Bala contended that she became the owner of the contiguous land by virtue of a deed of gift executed in her favour by her uncle Binod Behari. Nirmala Bala also claimed that she became a co-sharer of the relevant land by way of inheritance along with her brother and sisters from her father.

3. The learned Trial Judge rejected the said application filed by Nirmala Bala, but the appeal court allowed the appeal holding that Nirmala Bala was entitled to pre-empt the sale. The order of the appeal court below has been challenged in this present application. It is important to bear in mind that the fate of the pre-emption application filed by Nirmala Bala has been pending for about two decades. The present application is being contested by the legal heirs of Nirmala Bala and the successive purchasers of the relevant land over time.

4. To assail the judgment and order of the appeal court below, Mr. Siva Prasad Ghosh, learned advocate for the petitioners has raised three points. Firstly, he contends that that land in-question is a 'Bastu' land and, therefore, no right of pre-emption can be exercised with regard to such land. In support of the proposition that a 'Bastu' land cannot be pre-empted, Mr. Ghosh relies upon of the judgments ( Tarulata Mahanta vs. Haripada Sarkar, (2012) 5 CalHN 239 ), ( Punit Singh vs. Sri Gour @ Gobinda Chandra Das, (2007) 3 WbLR 93 ) and ( Swapan Kumar Kar -Versus- Salil Kumar Dey, (2004) 2 CalLJ 273 ). Mr. Ghosh, however, very fairly has drawn the attention of this Court to a judgment reported at ( Sri Ramala Chowdhury & Anr. vs. Sri Suman Ghosh, (2010) 1 CalLJ 556 ) expressing a contrary view.

5. Secondly, it has been argued by Mr. Ghose that Gopal had sold in excess of his share over the relevant land meaning thereby Gopal transferred his whole share of the land and in that view of the matter no pre-emption application was maintainable.

6. Finally, it has been contended that the pre-emptor did not deposit consideration money together with a further sum of 10 per cent of that amount along with her application for pre-emption and such short deposit rendered the application for pre-emption invalid in the eye of law and no order of pre-emption could have been passed by the appeal court on such application. He relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported at ( Barasat Eye Hospital -VersusKaustabh Mondal, (2019) 19 SCC 767 ).

7. Mr. Indrajeet Dasgupta, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, argues that the land in-question is a "Bastu" land situated within the municipal limits of Shantipur in Nadia. Sale with regard to such a 'Bastu' land is liable to be pre-empted. In support of this submission, Mr. Dasgupta relied upon the judgments reported at ( Abdulla Kabir versus Md. Nasiruddin, (1989) 2 SCC 361 ) and ( Sanjay Halder -versus- Budhan Rajak, (2016) 2 CalHN 489 ).

8. With regard to the second point as raised by Mr. Ghosh, Mr. Dasgupta submits that the dispute with regard to the transfer of the entire portion of share by the Gopal is inconsequential inasmuch as an application for pre-emption is maintainable even if the share is transferred in whole.

9. With regard to the issue on deposit of money, Mr. Dasgupta tried to distinguish the judgment passed in Barasat Eye Hospital case contending that the said judgment is applicable when pre-emption is claimed on the ground