The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the deposit requirement under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for pre-emption applications. Non-compliance with this requirement renders the application not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

M.R. Shah, J.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CO. NO. 4266 of 2016 by which the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the order passed by the first Appellate Court allowing the application submitted by the respondents herein - pre-emptors, the original respondents -revisionists before the High Court, the appellant herein - pre-emptee has preferred the present appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 5394 of 2022.

1.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CO. NO. 1153 of 2016 by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondents herein and has revived the execution case filed by the respondents for implementing the pre-emption order and has further directed that the executing court shall direct possession to be handed over to the pre-emptors in respect of the property in question positively within 31.08.2021, the appellant herein - pre-emptee has preferred the present appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 4261 of 2022.

2. The facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under:-

2.1 That the disputed property in question, which was the subject matter of application for pre-emption before the Appropriate Authority under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1955") belonged to one Khudiram Bhattacharya, who died on 17.04.2001 leaving behind him, surviving his widow Purnima Bhattacharya who also died on 14.08.2001 and three sons namely Subrata, Debabrata and Ratan (the pre-emptors herein) and two daughters Kalyani and Alpana, the vendors of the pre-emptee (appellant herein). On the death of Khudiram Bhattacharya and his widow, the aforesaid three sons and two daughters inherited the property in question each having undivided l/5th share therein. The daughters of the original owner - Khudiram Bhattacharya sold their undivided 2/5th share in the property in question to the appellant herein - pre-emptee - Abdul Matin Mallick vide registered sale deed dated 23.11.2011. The sale in favour of the appellant by the daughters of the said Khudiram Bhattacharya was sought to be pre-empted by the sons of said Khudiram Bhattacharya on the ground that their sisters have transferred their undivided share in the property in question to the appellant, a stranger to the said property without serving statutory notice under Sub-Section (5) of Section 5 of the Act, 1955. The said application under Section 8 of the Act, 1955 was registered as Misc. Pre-emption Case No. 8 of 2012 before the learned Trial Court.

2.2 The learned Trial Court dismissed the said application for pre-emption as not maintainable mainly on the ground that since the vendors of the pre-emptee had transferred their entire share in the suit property, the application for pre-emption under Section 8 of the Act, 1955 is not maintainable.

2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the pre-emption application, pre-emptors preferred the appeal before the First Appellate Court being Misc. Appeal No. 7 of 2014. The Appellate Court allowed the said appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court and consequently allowed the application for pre-emption holding that even when a co-sharer of a plot of land transfers his entire share to any person other than a raiyat in the said plot of land, the application for pre-emption under Section 8 of the Act, 1955 would be maintainable.

2.4 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the First Appellate Court allowing the pre-emption application, the purchaser - pre-emptee filed the present revision application before the High Court.

2.5 By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the said revision application and has not interfered with the judgme