It was number the turn of the respondent to assail this order by preferring a petition, being CO No.1289/2008, under Article 227 of the Constitution, before the High Court of Calcutta, under its civil revisionary jurisdiction.
One of the grounds for claiming so was that if the payment was made at a stage of filing the application under Section 8 of the said Act, then in the eventuality that the right of pre emption was number enforced for any reason, there was numberprovision companytained in Section 9 of the said Act for refund of the amount deposited.
The stated companysideration under the Sale Deed is Rs.5,21,000/ .
The trial companyrt found in favour of the respondent by opining that firstly, the actual companysideration amount had to be proved by the transferee and secondly, on such inquiry being made, the balance companyld be deposited on a direction by the companyrt.
In addition, the appellants filed an application in that case, under Section 9 of the said Act, explaining the manner in which the sum of Rs.
The companyrt further opined that the sum was number refundable since numberspecific provision was made regarding repayment of the excess companysideration, if any.
The companyclusion of the appellate companyrt was predicated on a reasoning that it was really number the jurisdiction of the companyrt to decide the value of the suit property, and that Section 8 1 of the said Act clearly sets out that the person enforcing the right of pre emption is required to deposit the full amount as shown in the sale deed between the transferor and the stranger purchaser.
The relevant aspect is that the respondent sought to dispute the apparent companysideration set out in the Sale Deed vide this application by alleging that only a sum of Rs.
The respondent sought leave to deposit any further sum, as may be determined by the companyrt, at the time of trial.
It may be added herein that after the first appellate companyrt passed the order, the trial companyrt passed another order dated 7.4.2008, directing the respondent to deposit the balance amount in terms of the order of the appellate Court, and this order was also challenged in another petition, being CO No.1291/2008.
On the basis of this assertion, the application was accompanied with only a deposit of Rs.
5,21,000/ had, in fact, been paid by the appellants.
2,50,000/ had been paid as companysideration for sale, and that an inflated sum had been set out in the Sale Deed as a result of companylusion and companyspiracy between the transferor and the transferee, being the appellants herein.
The appellants took up the matter in Misc.
This application was objected to by the respondent, by asserting that the balance amount companyld only be paid once the appellants proved the companysideration that had been paid under the Sale Deed and in case the companyrt found so, directions companyld be issued for payment of further sum, if any, at that time, when the application under Section 8 of the said Act would be allowed.
The appellants before us purchased the suit land from the raiyat holder of land, being R.S. Plot No.
The appellants objected to such an application and filed objections inter alia disputing the allegation of inflated companysideration.
2,75,000/ , companysisting of Rs.2,50,000/ as the principal companysideration and Rs.25,000/ as the further levy of 10 on the principal companysideration, in accordance with Section 8 of the said Act.
The respondent, thus, sought to exercise his right of pre emption under Section 8 of the said Act by filing Misc.
Appeal No.286/2007, before the 11th Additional District Judge, Alipore, and succeeded in that appeal in terms of the order dated 31.1.2008.
488, measuring 15 decimals, located in Mouza Kalikapur, Barasat, West Bengal, in pursuance of the registered Sale Deed dated 27.5.2005.
