IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that local investigation is not appropriate to determine property adjacency when evidence can establish ownership, placing the onus on the preemptor to prove contiguous ownership.

JUDGMENT :

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

The revisional application arises out of an order dated April 01, 2023, passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 6th Court at Alipore, district South 24 Parganas, in Misc. Case No.04 of 2022.

2. By the order impugned, the learned court allowed an application for local investigation. Misc. Case 04 of 2022 was an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as said Act). The learned court was of the view that in order to prove whether the properties were adjacent to each other, positive evidence was necessary. The prayer of the preemptor/opposite party No.1, for appointment of an investigation commissioner was allowed. Whether the property of the preemptor was adjacent to the property sold to the petitioner and other local features of the property, were sought to ascertained.

3. The petitioner is the pre-emptee and the opposite party No.1 as preemptor had filed an application under Section 8 of the said Act, in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 6th Court at Alipore, district 24 Parganas (south).

4. The subject-matter of the preemption case was 360 sq. ft. or 0.825 decimals danga land of Mouza Amtala, in R.S. dag no. 176 corresponding to L.R. dag no.655.

5. According to the preemption application, R.S. dag no.176, measuring about 22 decimals originally belonged to Amulya Charan Bakshi. By a registered deed of gift he transferred 3.67 decimals of land to the proforma opposite party, Samir Kumar Bakshi. Subsequently, Samir Kumar Bakshi further acquired 5.5 decimals of land from his mother Jyotshna Rani Debi. Later, Jyotsna Rani Debi transferred 4.58 decimals of land to Samir Kumar Bakshi. Accordingly, Samir Bakshi became owner of 13.75 decimals of land in R.S. dag no.176 corresponding to L.R. dag no.655 and by a registered deed the preemptor purchased 3.30 decimals of danga land from Samir Kumar Bakshi on August 10, 2018. Thereafter, the petitioner also purchased 0.87 decimals of land in R.S. dag no.177. The preemptor thus, became owner of more or less 4 decimals in R.S. dag No.177 corresponding to L.R. dag No.656. That the property measuring about 24 decimals situated in R.S. dag No.177 corresponding to L.R. dag no.656 was an adjacent plot and the preemptor had right, title and interest in a part of the same. The preemptor claimed preemption of the suit property on the ground of contiguous ownership.

6. The petitioner objected to such application, inter alia, stating that the petitioner had purchased a specific demarcated plot of land measuring about 0.825 decimals in R.S. dag No.176 corresponding to L.R. dag No.655 of Mouza Amtala. From the deeds and the plans annexed to the deeds, it was crystal clear that the property purchased by the opposite party No.1/preemptor was not adjacent to R.S. plot No.176 corresponding to L.R. dag No.655. 0.825 decimals of land in R.S. dag No.176, corresponding to L.R. dag No.655, was purchased by the petitioner with the financial help from his father and a separate plan had been annexed to the said purchase deed dated October 25, 2021. The plot was specifically demarcated in the deed. The fact remained that there was no common boundary between the lands of the respective parties and the parties were neither adjacent owners nor co-sharers.

7. Mr. Roy, further submitted that the specific case of the preemptor was that the strip of land, which was the subject-matter of the preemption application was in the western side of the land of the preemptor. The schedule of the preemption application also indicated that the plot of land of the preemptor was on the eastern side of the suit land.

8. Pointing to the application for local investigation, Mr. Roy submitted that only because the preemptee/petitioner had denied the claim of contiguity, the same could not be a ground for the learned court to allow local investigation. The issue involved in the preemption application was whether the propert