IMPORTANT POINT
The right of preemption is a statutory right that does not encompass the adjudication of title disputes, which must be resolved in separate proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Sarkar, J.

1. The revisional application arises out of an order dated January 18, 2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Haldia, Purba Medinipur, in J. Misc. (Preemption) Case No.24 of 2020.

2. By the order impugned, the learned court rejected an application for amendment of the pre-emption application on the ground that such amendment would change the nature and character of the proceeding. The court was only deciding a pre-emption case and could not decide title. By the amendment, the petitioner was introducing a controversy with regard to the title of the vendor, in respect of the property sold to the opposite party/pre-emptee.

3. Mr. Asish Chandra Bagchi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the pre-emptor/petitioner submitted that an application for pre-emption was nothing but a suit. The civil court adjudicating the pre-emption case was the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Haldia, Purba Medinipur. Thus, the question of title could also be decided in the pre-emption proceeding by the said judge who also had the jurisdiction to decide a title suit.

4. Reliance was placed on the decision of Minor Subir Ranjan Mondal vs. Sita Nath Mukherjee, reported in AIR 1994 Cal 166,

5. Mr. Bagchi relied on a decision reported in 51 CWN 415, Hossain Ali and anr. vs. Kala Chand Ghose (Gope) and ors. to substantiate that the Calcutta High Court had held that under Section 26-F of the Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885), the question of title could be gone into. The very language of Section 26-F would indicate that while the court could decline to go into the complicated questions of title in the proceedings under Section 26-F of the Bengal Tenancy Act, it had the jurisdiction to decide the title. The court was not bound to relegate the parties to a title suit in every case.

6. It was further contended that the amendment should not have been rejected at the initial stage, as the merits of the amendment would be decided at the trial. Whether the facts incorporated by way of an amendment were true and correct would be decided at the final adjudication.

7. Mr. Gopal Chandra Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party/preemptee submitted that the petitioner initiated the proceeding under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The said proceeding was initiated on the ground of vicinage and co-sharership.

The preemptor, under the said provisions, was permitted to claim transfer of the land sold to the pre-emptee on the ground that he had a preferential right either on account of being a co-sharer of the plot sold or a contiguous owner of the plot sold.

8. In the application for preemption, it had been pleaded that although the petitioner was a co-sharer of the suit land, the vendor of the opposite party, did not notify the petitioner about the sale. As a non-notified co-sharer, the petitioner filed the preemption application. The opposite party/preemptee was a complete stranger to the plot and an unprotected transferee. The property had not been partitioned by metes and bounds, in terms of the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The preemptor further stated that although the sale deed reflected an inflated price of Rs.3,50,000/-as consideration money paid by the opposite party, in reality only Rs.2,00,000/-had been paid. The preemptor had a right to claim refund of the excess money which was deposited. If the preemption application was decreed, the total property of the preemptor would not exceed the ceiling limit as provided under Section 14-M of the Land Reforms Act, 1955.

9. By the amendment, the petitioner sought to introduce certain facts relating to the competence of the vendor to sell the property. It was stated that the vendor of the opposite party could not have sold more than 6.75 decimals out of 13.75 decimals, as he did not have right, title and interest over the remaining portion sold. The consideration amount which was actually paid by the opposite part