Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that averment made in paragraph 9 of written objection, it has been categorically stated, since demarcated portion of land have been sold, there is no co-sharership, not only that, by virtue of the said deed other plots have also been sold to the present petitioners/preemptees. Therefore, the partial preemption cannot be granted in favour of the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor.

In rebuttal, Learned Advocate for the opposite party no. 1 has relied on a decision in case of Sk Sarafat Ali & Ors. Vs. Hossain Ali Molla & Ors. reported in 2002 (4) CHN 285 which is special Bench decision as the reference to the Special Bench was to this effect, whether a substantive right conferred under a co-sharer in a portion or share of a holding of a raiyat to exercise the right of pre-emption had been taken away by deletion of the words 'and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue' from the definition of "holding" in Section 2 of sub-section (6) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act after the words 'means the land held by a raiyat.' It was held that the legislature by introducing the amendment Act of 2000 has now virtually done away with the concept of "holding" of a raiyat. The definition clause in Section 2(6) corresponding amendment in section 8 of the Act has been brought about in the Act with retrospective effect from 7th August, 1969. By this amendment the right of pre-emption under Section 8 of the Act would occur only when a portion or share of a plot of land of a raiyat is transferred to a person other than a co-sharer of a raiyat in the plot of land. Therefore, while deciding with an application under Section 8 of the Act, there would be no necessity for the Court to apply the principle relating to a definition of "holding" as in section 2(6) of the Act before its amendment.

I do agree with the proposition in the cited decisions, but the facts in the present case is differently situated. It appears from the deed of sale dated 29.10.2009 that 9 decimals of land butted and bounded with clear demarcation was sold to the preemptor. Similarly, well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the suit plot was sold to the petitioners/ preemptees along with several other plots by the impugned deed of sale dated 10.8.2010 which has been sought to be preempted. Now a question arise as to whether a partial preemption is maintainable as prayed for by the preemptor. It would appear from the application under Sections 8 & 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act that the petitioner has not described in clear term the total quantum of land contained in the suit plot out of which only 11 decimals of land was gifted by Bijoy Krishna Hira to Santosh Kumar Hira by a well demarcated butted and bounded with its boundary and possession was taken thereof and said Santosh Kumar Hira had sold well demarcated 9 decimals of land out of that to the preemptor Sudhir Hira and 2 decimals remained with Santosh Kumar Hira. It cannot be ascertained that said Sudhir Hira by virtue of purchased became co-sharer with Bijoy Krishna Hira in the said plot of land. I do find that rest fraction of land in the plot is with the donee namely Santosh Kumar Hira.

As regards partial preemption it would appear from the findings of the trial Court that three different plots were transferred by a single impugned deed. It would appear from the judgment of the trial Court that a reference was made to a case reported in 1980(1) CLJ 135 and observed that a preemptor cannot be allowed to preempt only the suit property where other plots are also conveyed by the impugned deed and on her own the trial Judge was inclined to cite unreported decision in case of Smt. Ira Mistri Vs. Smt. Rupali Mondal & Anr. passed in Civil Revision being C.O. No. 152 of 2012, wherein the Hon'ble Court positively held that partial preemption is not permissible in law but such preemption is permissible in case of a sale of several properties appertaining to different holdings in one deed of transfer and in case of a sale to a stranger as well as to a co-sharer in one deed of transfer. Therefore, the partial preemption is dependent on the facts and circumstances of a case in accordance with the evidence adduced by the parties to the suit. Yet, the learned trial Judge considered a decision of a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court reported in 1997(2) CLJ 480 wherein it is held that in allowing a partial preemption, the Court should determine the valuation of land in respect of which the order of preemption is to be made.

I am of the considered opinion bearing in mind the settled principle of law that right of preemption is a weak right and in case of preemption it is the impugned deed of kobala which is preempted and not the land so, in case of a sale of lands in different plots, preemptor cannot be allowed to preempt a particular land covered by impugned deed of sale. The right of preemption cannot be lightly exercised with respect to one or some of them. It is a right of substitution taking in the entire bargain. It must take the whole or nothing. That apart, the circumstances of sale of several properties to different holdings in one deed of transfer and sale to a stranger as well as to a co-sharer in one deed of transfer has not been substantiated in the given facts of the case before the learned Courts below. Therefore, the partial preemption ought not have been allowed, ergo, the application for preemption is liable to be dismissed.