JUDGMENT :

Arijit Banerjee, J.

1. This revisional application is directed against the judgment and order dated March 21, 2007, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C (1st), Raygunge, Uttar Dinajpur, in Misc. Appeal 07/2005 (Sobhana Dey v. Tapaban Kumar Dey), dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and order dated July 26, 2005, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, in Misc. Case No. 17/2003, whereby the present petitioner’s application for pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (in short, ‘the said Act’) was dismissed.

2. The petitioner claimed right of pre-emption both on the basis of being a co-sharer and also on the basis of vicinage. The learned Trial Court came to a categorical finding that the vendor of the land in question, prior to selling the same to the opposite party herein, had written a letter to the petitioner offering to sell the said land (3 katahs) to her at a price of Rupees Eighty Thousand per katah. However, the petitioner at that time had expressed her financial inability to purchase the said land at that price. Thereafter the land was sold by the vendor to the opposite party herein.

3. It was also contended by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court that the price of the land mentioned in the sale deed executed in favour of the opposite party is inflated. On that pretext, the petitioner did not deposit the entire consideration amount plus 10% as required under Section 8 of the said Act for exercising the right of pre-emption. The learned Trial Court found on the basis of evidence adduced that there is no reason to hold that the consideration amount shown in the impugned sale deed is inflated.

4. Finally, the learned Trial Court came to a conclusion that the owner had sold the entirety of his land to the opposite party herein and not a part or share thereof. Accordingly, no right of pre-emption arose in favour of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner’s application was dismissed.

6. The Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the learned Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The pre-emptor has filed the present revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the judgment and order of the Appellate Court.

7. Learned advocate for the petitioner argued the following points:-

(i) The petitioner did not receive notice under Section 5(4) of the said Act.

(ii) There is difference of opinion as to whether or not the right of pre-emption arises if the entirety of a plot of land is transferred and not only a part or share thereof. It was submitted that the due to such difference in opinion, in the case of Naymul Haque @ Nainul Haque v. Allauddin SK. (C.O. 1164 of 2015), a learned Single Judge referred the issue to the Hon’ble Chief Justice for having the issue decided by a larger bench. A Division Bench, in a decision reported at 2019 (1) CLJ 488, decided that right of preemption may arise even when entirety of a plot of land is transferred.

(iii) the question as to whether or not right of pre-emption arises when a vendor transfers his/her entire portion or share in a plot of land to a person other than a co-sharer has been referred to the Chief Justice with a request to constitute a larger bench, by a learned Single Judge in the case of Sajidul Khandakar v. Bhabani Biswas reported at (2020) 4 CLT 345 (HC). Till such question is decided by the larger Bench, the present matter should be adjourned.

(iv) The question as to whether or not a pre-emption application under Section 8 of the said Act on the ground of co-sharer ship can be rejected at the outset as not maintainable if the application is accompanied by a deposit of an amount less than the consideration shown in the sale deed sought to be pre-empted along with the statutory interest of 10 per cent and no notice under Section 5 of the Said Act was served upon the co-sharer/pre-emptor, has been referred to a larger Bench by a learned Single Judge in