Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Aparna Maity vs Smt. Purabi Das on 19 December, 2016
Author: Harish Tandon
Bench: Harish Tandon
1 9 19.12. C.O. 3859 of 2015 AGM 2016 Smt. Aparna Maity Vs Smt. Purabi Das Mr. A. K. Gayen, Mr. A. A. Gayen, Mr. J. Paul, .... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Tapan Coomaar Dey, Ms. Anusmita Majumdar, .... For the Opposite Party.
This revisional application is directed against an order No. 22 dated 4th August 2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Contai in Judicial Miscellaneous Case 06 of 2013 by which the application filed by the pre-emptee for deposit of the consideration money shown in the deed is allowed.
Admittedly, a proceeding was initiated under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 by the petitioner against the opposite party as non-notified co-sharer. It appears that the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/-, which he feels to be fair and reasonable market price of the said premises. Since the deed of sale executed in favour of the pre-emptee /opposite party contains the consideration much higher than what has 2 been deposited, it prompted the pre-emptee to take out the application seeking direction to deposit the said consideration money as condition precedent for maintaining an application under the aforesaid provision.
The learned advocate appearing for the opposite party relied upon a judgment of the Coordinate Bench in case of Susanta Jadav -Vs- Rupchand Dhar reported in 2013 (3) CHN (Cal) 140 in support of his contention that in absence of any reliable character to disapprove the consideration money mentioned in the transferred deed, the Court is not obliged to proceed with the pre-emption application under the said provision. The Division Bench judgement in case of Sahid Ali -Vs. Abul Kasem reported in 98 CWN 758 was noticed by the Coordinate Bench and in paragraph 12 of the said report it is held that an application under Section 8 of the said Act cannot be rejected on the ground of any short deposit. It would be profitable to quote the said observations which runs thus:
" 12. In view of the aforesaid decisions such application filed under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 cannot be rejected on the ground of any short deposit. The learned Civil Judge, in fact, did not dismiss the said application on the ground of short deposit but required the petitioner to pay the balance amount. The direction of the 3 learned Civil Judge has resulted in the present revisional application."
The similar point arose before me in case of Pradipta Padha -Vs- Laxmi Kanta Maity reported in 2015 (3) CHN (Cal) 186 wherein I had an occasion to consider not only the Division Bench judgment rendered in Sahid Ali (Supra) but also the other judgments of the Division Bench delivered in case of Sadhan Chandra Samanta -Vs- Jaladhi Bala Dasi reported in 1986 (1) CLJ 170 and held that the non-deposit of the consideration money and the compensation shall not make the application liable to be rejected. In paragraph 10 of the said report it has been observed that it is a consistent view that non-deposit of full consideration money is not fatal to an application under Section 8 of the said Act as the said provision does not imbibe within itself any penal consequences.
The principle of stare decisis was also applied and once there is a uniform decision rendered by the Court, it should not be ordinarily departed from unless the consideration of public policy demands it.
Neither the judgment delivered in case of Susanta Jadav (Supra) nor in case of Pradipta Padha (Supra) have 4 taken a contrary view as it is uniformly held that for short deposit the application under the aforesaid provision cannot fail.
The matter of valuation is certainly one of the relevant factors to be determined by the Court but such stage has been indicated in Section 9 (1) of the Act.
In the instant case such stage has not arrived and, therefore, this Court finds that the order impugned is contrary to the aforesaid decision and cannot be sustained.
In view of the above the order impugned is hereby set aside.
The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the pre- emption proceeding as expeditiously as possible without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties and preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order in accordance with law.
The revisional application is disposed of. No costs.
( Harish Tandon, J.) 5