The definition of 'raiyat' under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 permits non-cultivating successors to assert pre-emption rights.

1. These two Rules arise out of two pre - emption proceedings under S.8(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 .

2. It appears that some of the co - sharers of the disputed holding sold portions of the same to the opposite party M/s. Chandra Engineering (India) Ltd. by two registered sale deeds dated April 2, 1966 and April 4, 1966. It is not disputed that the opposite party is a stranger in respect of the disputed holding. The petitioner alleged that he was a co - sharer raiyat of the holding and that the transfers were made without service of any notice upon the petitioner under S.5(5) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. After the petitioner came to know of the said two transfers, the petitioner made the said two applications before the Senior Land Reforms Officer on August 17, 1966, praying for pre - emption under S.8(1) of the Act.

3. The opposite party opposed the said two applications of the petitioner. It was alleged by the opposite party that the petitioner was not a co - sharer raiyat of the disputed holding and that the applications not having been filed within the period of limitation prescribed by S.8(1) of the Act, the applications were barred.

4. The Senior Land Reforms Officer by two orders both dated March 27, 1967, passed in the two pre - emption cases arising out of the said two applications of the petitioner, came to the findings that the petitioner was a co - sharer raiyat of the holding and that no notice of the transfer was served upon the petitioner. Relying on the decision of the Special Bench of this Court in Asmatali v. Mujaharali , 52 Cal WN 64 : (AIR 1948 Cal 48) (SB), the Senior Land Reforms Officer held that the applications having been filed within three years of the respective dates of the transfers, the applications were not barred by limitation. Upon these findings, the Senior Land Reforms Officer allowed the applications of the petitioner for pre - emption under S.8(1) of the Act. The opposite party preferred two appeals to the Second Court of the Munsif at Arambagh. Both these appeals were heard analogously by the learned Munsif.

5. The learned Munsif took the view that Art.181 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, was not applicable to an application under S.8(1) of the Act. According to him, Art.181 would apply only to an application under the Code of Civil Procedure and that the applications under S.8(1) of the Act not being applications under the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner was not entitled to avail of the three years' rule of limitation as prescribed by Art.181. The learned Munsif held that the applications of the petitioner were barred by limitation. On the question whether the petitioner was a raiyat or not, the learned Munsif was of the view that as the petitioner who is the successor - in - interest of the raiyat in respect of the disputed holding, not being himself a cultivator was not a raiyat and as such the petitioner's applications under S.8(1) was not maintainable as the petitioner could not be said to be co - sharer raiyat. On the aforesaid findings, the learned Munsif by his order dated January 7, 1969, allowed the appeals and dismissed the applications of the petitioner under S.8(1). Hence, these two Rules by the petitioner.

6. It may be stated at the outset, that the learned Munsif was right in holding that Art.181 applied only to applications under the Code of Civil Procedure and that the applications of the petitioner under S.8(1) not being applications under the Code of Civil Procedure, the provision of Art.181 was not available to the petitioner. Whatever doubts there might have been previ