IMPORTANT POINT
Pre-emption rights under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act require joint ownership of contiguous land for a valid claim.

JUDGMENT :

(Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.) :

1. Petitioners herein filed pre-emption case under section 8 & 9 of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 contending that 02 decimal of land in plot no. 391/587 of Mouza Mohammadpur as described in schedule A to the Application was sold by one Narayan Prasad Tiwari, who was owner of entire plot No. 391/587 having an area of 09 decimal by executing a registered deed of sale which was presented for registration on 30.10.1992 and registration was completed on 05.09.1994

2. Petitioners further case is that they are joint owners of adjacent plot no. 391 and 427 which has the longest common boundary with the suit property and accordingly they filed the aforesaid case, seeking pre-emption on the ground of vicinage. In the said case initially an exparte order was passed which was subsequently set aside by this court in C.O. 1777 of 2009. Thereafter the pre-emptee/opposite parties herein field written objection contending that the vendor had sold his entire interest in the property and as such the petitioner have no legal right to claim pre-emption and they have also denied that the petitioners are owner of contiguous plots. Learned Trial court after considering the evidence and the submissions made by the parties, rejected the pre-emption case being J Misc. case 2 of 1995, observing that the petitioners are not the raiyat of contiguous plots of the suit land.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment dated 03.01.2013, the petitioners/pre-emptors preferred Miscellaneous Appeal being Misc. Appeal no. 38 of 2013. Learned Appellate Court after hearing the submissions made by the parties, was pleased to dismiss the Appeal holding inter alia that findings of the the learned Trial Judge in support of dismissal, holding that the petitioners are not the raiyats of contiguous plots of the suit land, is not sustainable but held that the vendor Narayan Prasad Tiwary has no co-sharers over the said plot no. 391/571 and he further held, since precondition in succeeding the claim of pre-emption of said plot in question on the ground of vicinage, such land must be under the joint ownership and not under the ownership of a single individual in terms of section 8 (1) of Act of 1955, so the petitioners despite being the raiyat of the contiguous land of the suit plot are not entitled to any relief in the present case and as such he affirmed the judgment and order dated 03.01.2013 passed by the Trial Court, on a different footing.

4. Being aggrieved by that order Mr. Sengupta learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that according to Mouza Map as well as schedule of the deeds, admittedly the petitioners are raiyat of adjoining land, having longest boundary to the suit plot. There is no dispute that the petitioners approached before the court within statutory period and deposited the statutory amount for filing the pre-emption case. Pre-emption application was filed on 04.01.1995 while the registration of the deed was completed on 05.09.1994. He further submits that Mouza Map clearly depicts that the plot no. 391 and 427 owned by petitioners/pre-emptors are adjacent to the suit property in dag no. 391/587.

5. Mr. Sengupta further submits that the Appellate Court though did not accept the Trial Courts view that the land owned by pre-emptor is not contiguous to the suit plot, however he affirmed the judgment passed by the Trial Court on an erroneous finding that as there is no co-sharer in Dag No. 391/587 and as it is owned by a single owner, therefore, pre-emption application is not maintainable. To contradict said observation made by court below petitioner herein relied upon Judgment of Chhana Rani Saha Vs. Mani Pal reported in (2017) 11 SCCK 0032 and Naimul Haque Vs. Alauddin Sheikh reported in 2017 (4) ICC 600 (cal) and also the judgment of Dilip Kumar Dhara Vs. Ranjit Kuamr Mondal reported in AIR 2019 Cal 67 and contended that application under section 8 lies only if a portion or