IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.O.414 of 2008 Pijush Khedia & Ors.

VS.

Smt. Santi Devi Agarwal & Ors.

For the Petitioners :Mr. Siddhartha Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Rahul Karmakar, Adv.

Mr. Sudipta Dasgupta, Adv.

Mr. Suthirtha Nayek, Adv.

For the Respondent Party no. 1 :Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Souradeep Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. S. Sen, Adv.

Ms. Sanjana Sinha, Adv.

Last Heard On :13.05.2025 Judgement On :22.05.2025 Bibhas Ranjan De, J. :

1. Challenge of this civil order is the judgment and order dated 12th December 2007 passed in connection with Misc. Appeal no. 12 of 2007 wherein Ld. Additional District Judge, 1st Court, at Purulia reversed the order passed by Ld. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Purulia passed in connection with Misc.(pre-emption) Case no.

125 of 1997.

Facts in brief:-

2. One application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (for short WBLR Act) was filed with intent to pre-empt the land mentioned in the schedule to the application. Municipal holding no. C/177 belonged to one Onkar Mal Khadia, father of the original petitioner, whose name was recorded against R.S. Plot no. 5906, R.S. Khatian no. 13979. After demise of said Onkar Mal Khadia, the said property devolved upon his five sons namely Promod, Gopal, Rajesh, Dilip & Somnath. After demise of Promod his wife Kusum Devi Khadia and his children inherited the same. After death of Onkar Mal Khadia all his legal heirs partitioned their properties and used to possess their respective allotted portion.

3. Heirs of Promod sold their allotted portion to one Kiriti Bhusan Majee and Smt. Sarala Majee vide sale deed dated 21.02.1990. Kusum Devi Khadia wife of Late Promod Khadia sold rest portion to one Somnath Majee by a deed dated 22.04.1992. Subsequently, said Kiriti Buhsan, Smt. Sarala and Somnath Majee sold three Kathas of land to the predecessor in-interest of the petitioners, Gopal Kedia by three separate registered deeds dated 7th January, 1994. Thereafter, petitioner constructed boundary over his land.

4. Opposite party no. 2 and her husband disclosed that opposite party no. 1 purchased portion of the holdings i.e. 287/K/C-177, 287/J/C-177 and 287/L/C-177 from opposite party no. 2 to 4. On inquiry, the petitioner came to know that the opposite party no. 2 to 4 have sold away the scheduled land to opposite party no. 1 by virtue of three (3) sale deeds dated 20.06.1997 without serving any notice under Section 5 (5) of the WBLR Act upon the petitioner. After knowing the transfer, petitioner requested the opposite party no. 1 to sale the property in his favour but it was refused. Petitioner claimed himself to be a co-sharer raiyat of the land which was transferred to a stranger/opposite party no. 1 who was not a co-sharer. Petitioner also claimed the property being adjoining land owner having largest common boundary. So the pre-emption application was filed after making statutory payment of Rs. 60,000/- out of total consideration money of Rs.

1,20,000/-.

5. Opposite party contested the case by filing written objection contending, inter alia, that the application under Section 8 of the WBLR Act is not maintainable in respect of three (3) separate sale deed and also denied the claim of co-sharer and adjoining land owner. It is also contended that pre-emption on the ground of vicinage is not maintainable qua the property other than agricultural land. It has been further contended that opposite party no. 1 purchased the scheduled land for total consideration money of Rs. 1,20,000/- and opposite party no. 2 to 4 also proposed the petitioner to purchase the land but petitioner offered a very low price and that was the reason why they sold the property to the opposite party no. 1.

Observation of the Trial Court:-

6. Ld. Trial Judge recorded evidence of this case and framed issues on the point of maintainability of the application under Section 8 of the WBLR Act and the issue of entitlement of the petitioners in terms of being co-