The appellate companyrt further upheld the findings of the trial companyrt that the application was number barred by limitation and the appel lant respondent herein was a companysharer of the said land.
Thereafter on October 28, 1968 Sisir Kumar Mondal and Naba Kumar Mondal sold their shares to Nurunessa Khatun, predecessor of the respondent petitioner.
The distuted deed does number companytain the recital that the respondentpetitioner was an adjoining land owner.
Against the said judgment and order, Misc.
This application was registered as Misc.
The land in ques tion i.e. plot No.
Appeal No.
The land is number agricultural land and as such the application for pre emp tion under Section 8 of the said Act was number maintainable.
The disputed property is number agricultural tenancy.
115/852 measuring 0.3 cents was owned by one Sarat Chandra Dutta, son of Amulaya Ratan.
l b and Bari in the R.S. Record of Right Exh.
The Trial Court further held that the subject matter of the sale was recorded as Bastu in the Kobala dated May 16, 1974 Exh.
Case No.
84 of 1980 was filed by the respondent in the 2nd Court of the Addl.
1,000.
Against this judgment and order, the instant appeal on special leave has been preferred in this Court.
It is the case of the respondent petitioner that as numbernotice of the said sale was served on his mother, Nurunessa Khatun, he companyld number know of the said sale earli er.
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.1985 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No.
On the basis of this Kobala Nurunessa Khatun became companysharer in respect of the said land.
Appeal was, therefore, allowed and the judgment of the trial companyrt was set aside.
This appeal on special leave arises out of an applica tion for preemption filed under the provisions of Section 8 of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 West Bengal Act X of 1956 by the respondent, Md. Nasiruddin to pre empt the land sold to the appellant, Abdulla Kabir by a Kobala dated May 16, 1974 by a companysharer having 1/4th interest in plot No.
The Misc.
The petition for preemption is barred by limitation as the respondent petitioner was all along aware of the said sale and the story of his companying to know of such sale after taking companyy of sale deed on May 3, 1977 was absolutely false.
The appellant companytested the case by filing a written objection companytending inter alia that the respondent petitioner was neither companysharer of the holding number an adjoining land owner.
After the death of Nurunessa Khatun her heirs including the eldest son, the respondent petitioner, inherited the right of occupancy as companysharer.
3 h and though Sarat Chandra Dutta, the owner of the land was an agriculturist yet this homestead land being number included in the raiyat holding companyld number be treated as agricultural land according to the provisions of West Bengal Land Reforms Act because of the numberagricultural use as evident from the R.S. Record of rights.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
2716 of 1981 Shankar Ghosh and Rathin Das for the Appellant.
Sarat Chandra Dutta was an agriculturist and he used to keep his agricul tural implements in the said property.
2716 of 1981 in the High Court at Calcutta.
525 of 1989.
Thereafter, on December 11, 1985 the Civil Rule was discharged by holding that I am number satisfied that the finding recorded by the appellate companyrt based as it is on an assessment of evidence, suffers from any jurisdictional defect or error, so as to entitle this Court to interfere in revision.
During R.S. operation also the said property was recorded in his name as Raiyat Sthitiban and the classification of land was re companyded as Bari i.e. homestead of the said agriculturist.
36 of 1977 in the Court of Munsif, 2nd Court, Bolpur.
The Trial Court held that the petitioner respondent was a companyharer and was entitled to pre empt the application for pre emption was number barred by limitation as it was filed within a period of three years of knowledge of the same as numbernotice of sale was served on the petitioner respondent.
Against this judgment and order of the appellate companyrt, the appellant, Abdulla Kabir filed a petition in revision being C.R. No.
After hearing both the parties, the amendment was allowed subject to the payment of companyts quantified at Rs.
1944 on the ground of his being companysharer in the said holding.
115/852 appertaining to Khatian No.
Three issues were framed by the Trial Court i.e. Whether the case land is number agricultural and whether section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act will be ap plicable in this case Whether the petitioner was a companysharer in respect of case holding from before purchase of the disputed land Whether the case is barred by limitation?
During the pendency of the said Revisional case the respond ent pre emptor made an application for amendment of the relief claimed in the application for pre emption by adding an alternative relief for pre emption under Section 24 of the West Bengal Non Agricultural Tenancy Act.
On September 20, 1967, Sarat Chandra Dutta, owner of the said plot of land, sold the same by a registered Kobala to four persons namely Sisir Kumar Mondal, Naba Kumar Mondal, Madhusudan Mondal and Purmlakshmi Mondal.
District Judge, Birbhum.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, J. Special leave granted.
He also possessed along with the said land other agricultural lands as agri culturist and in occupancy raiyati interest.
P. Mukherjee, and G.S. Chaterjee for the Respondent.
The appellate companyrt reversed the findings of the trial companyrt and held that the suit property was recorded as of raiyati interest in the R.S. Record of rights and the suit land being the homestead of Sarat Chandra Dutta who was an agriculturist, it was agri cultural land according to the provisions of the said Act and the application for pre emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was maintainable.
Case was, therefore, dismissed.
On May 16, 1974, Purnalakshmi sold her 1/4th interest to the appellant, Abdulla Kabir by Kobala Exh.
Heard learned companynsel for both the parties.
However, on taking certified companyy of the said sale on May 3, 1977, the respondent petitioner filed an application for pre emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act after depositing the requisite sum as required to be deposited under the said Act.
The Misc.
