IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi CO 3975 of 2019 Srinath Mahata Vs. Kalicharan Raj & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Sukanta Das, Adv. Mrs. Anulekha Bera Maiti, Adv. For the opposite parties : Mr. Rabindranath Mahato, Adv. Mr. Aritra Shankar Ray, Adv. Heard on : 15.09.2026 Judgment on : 15.09.2026 Uploaded on : 15.09.2026 MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, J.:- 1. The instant revisional application has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated September 5, 2019 passed by learned 5th Additional District Judge, Paschim Medinipore in Misc. Appeal No. 46 of 2018. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned First Appellate Court modified the order passed by the learned trial Court in Pre-emption Case 45 of 2015. By the impugned order, the learned 2 First Appellate Court held that the appellants were entitled to pre- emption of the suit property, subject to payment of consideration money and compensation as decided by the learned Trial Court as per the provisions of law. The impugned judgment and order also directed the learned Trial Court to decide the market value of the suit property within three months and do the needful after payment of such amount as decided by the learned Trial Court. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not deposit the requisite amount, i.e., the consideration money mentioned in the deed, which was sought to be pre-empted, together with 10 % thereon. In that view of the facts, according to the learned advocate for the petitioner, the opposite party was not entitled to pre-empt the sale involved in the deed in question. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that since the pre-emptor has not deposited the requisite amount in terms of the provisions of Section 8 of West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, the petition for pre-emption filed by the opposite party herein is liable to be rejected. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the learned First Appellate Court, while passing the impugned judgment and order, was not justified in directing the learned Trial Court to 3 make an enquiry as to the actual market value of the properties sought to be pre-empted. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the matter with regard to the quantum of the consideration money required to be paid for preferring an application under Section 8 of West Bengal Land Reforms Act was referred to a Larger Bench of this Court in CO 785 of 2021. 7. The Larger Bench has decided the issue by a judgment was passed on August 28, 2026 in Sk. Abdul Odud Ali Vs. Emanulla Khan and Others. It is submitted that in view of the ratio laid down in such judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Larger Bench, the prayer in the petition for pre-emption of the properties involved in the impugned deed does not stand and is liable to be rejected. 8. On the other hand, learned advocate for the opposite parties submits that the learned First Appellate Court was quite justified in passing the impugned judgment and order. He submits that the pre-emptee had mentioned an inflated consideration money in the deed in question in order to avoid any application for pre- emption of the properties involved in such deed. Learned First Appellate Court was justified in directing an enquiry as to the actual market value of the properties involved in such deed for the purpose of determination of the consideration amount liable to be paid for 4 such purpose. He stood by the impugned judgment and order. The opposite party nos. 1 and 2 filed an application under Section 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 praying inter ala for pre-emption of the properties involved in the impugned deed. Such proceeding was registered as Misc. (Pre-emption) Case no. 45 of 2015. The property involved in such deed appertained to plot no. 711 of Mouja Amlakara within the district of Paschim Medinipur measuring 10 decimal. Such properties belonged to one Khagendra Raj and Kunja Raj. The owners sold the said property by a registered deed dated August 11, 2015 to the petitioner in Pre- emption case. The petitioners purchased 19 decimals out of 76 decimals in plot no. 711 whereas the petitioner no. 2 purchased 12 decimals in the said plot. It was further contended that the suit plot was never partitioned between the co-sharers and the vendors of the petitioner sold out a portion of such plot to the petitioner herein without notice upon the petitioners of Pre-emption case. The consideration money in such deed was disclosed as 99,500/-. However, according to the case made out by the petitioner, the actual market value of such property was not more than Rs. 50,000/-. The remaining 7 decimals in the said plot were subsequently transferred by the said Khagendra Raj and Kunja Raj in favour of the opposite parties herein (petitioner in the pre- 5 emption case). The opposite parties filed an application for pre- emption of the properties purchased by the present petitioner herein on the basis of sale deed executed in his favour. 9. By an order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Misc. (Pre-emption) Case no. 45 of 2015, dismissed the claim of the opposite parties herein for pre-emption of the property purchased by the present petitioner. It was held by the learned trial Court that “In the light of backdrop of above discussion, evidence, other material on record, fact and circumstance of this case, I am of the considered view that Kunja Raj and Khagendra Raj had transferred his entire property of the case plot so, I find no alternative but to say that the petitioners are not entitled to get the order of pre- emption of the case property.” 10. Being aggrieved with such order, the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 preferred miscellaneous appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 46 of 2018. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned First Appellate Court held that the present opposite party nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to pre-empt the suit property subject to payment of consideration money, as decided by the learned trial Court as per the provisions of law. The learned First Appellate Court also directed, in the impugned judgment and order, to the learned Trial Court to decide the market value of the property involved in the 6 deed, sought to be pre-empted within three months and to do the needful upon receipt of the payment of the consideration money decided by it. 11. In the impugned judgment and order, the learned First Appellate Court held as follows :- “14. As per section 8 of the WBLR Act following persons are eligible for claiming right of pre-emption a) Bargadar b) Co-Sharer c) Raiyat possessing land adjoining such plot of land. In the present case, learned Trial court has hold that petitioners were co-sharer of the plot of land of the raiyat, which has been transferred by seller to opposite party. In fact, learned Trial Court finding in that regard is based upon section 14 of the WBLR Act. Learned Advocate for the appellants has argued that before the learned Trial Court, appellants has successfully proved that they are the co-sharer as well as raiyat possessing land adjoining such plot of a land. Learned Trial court finding on the point of possessing land by appellants on the adjoining plot, is that in that respect there is only oral evidence. A person cannot be co-sharer and possessing plot of land which has been sold. simultaneously unless and until, he has separate property on the basis of which he is claiming his right of pre-emption, but in this case there is no two separate property owned by petitioners on the basis of which petitioners can claim that they are co-sharer as well as possessing the land adjoining to such plot of land. I have of the view that appellants have successfully established through evidence that they are the co-sharer of the plot of land of the raiyat, and failed to establish that they 7 are possessing the land adjoining such plot of land. Thus, the third condition of pre-emption that is co-sharer in the plot of land has been fulfilled by the appellants. 15. With above observation I have of the view that appellants have fulfilled all the required conditions under section 8 of the W.B.L.R. Act except conditions of full deposit of consideration amount, and compensation in terms of section 8(1) of the WBLRA. From the pleadings of the both parties, it appears to me that there is dispute between the parties regarding actual market value of the suit property, and value mentioned in the sale deed exhibit -C Deed no-2050 of 2015. Since, the application of the appellants under section -8 of WBLRA was dismissed, so the learned Trial court has not assessed the value of the suit property. It is duty of the court to decide the actual market value of the suit property, and direct the parties to deposit the same in case of shortfall as observed by the Honourable High Court in the matter of Helu Pal Vs. Master Souvik Sarkar 2016 (3) CHN (Cal) 495. In this case actual seller of the suit property has not been made party but that seller is not necessary party in this case as there is no any relief against that seller of suit property and none of the parties have raised that issue before this court; so I have of the view that seller is not necessary party and his non-joinder will not be fatal for this case.” 12. As it transpires, the learned First Appellate Court while deciding Misc. Appeal no. 46 of 2018, held that opposite party nos. 1 and 2 to are co-sharers of the land sought to be pre-empted. On such conclusion, the learned First Appellate Court held that 8 opposite party nos. 1 and 2 to be entitled for pre-empting the deed executed in favour of the present petitioners. 13. The question as to what amount is required to be paid by a pre-emptor while preferring an application under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was decided by the Larger Bench of this Court in Sk. Abdul Odud Ali (supra). It was held by the Larger Bench to do the following :- “31. In view of the above, we answer the reference in the affirmative, holding as follows: A pre-emption application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (whether on the ground of co- sharership - notified or unnotified or otherwise) has to be rejected at the outset as not maintainable if the application is not accompanied by the statutory deposit of the consideration amount shown in the sale deed sought to be pre-empted, along with 10% thereon, irrespective of whether there is or is not any allegation that the price shown in the deed was inflated and the actual consideration money paid according to the pre-emption is the lesser amount deposited with the pre- emption application.” 14. As to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 deposited Rs. 50,000/- towards consideration money together with 10% thereof, claiming it to be the actual market price of transformed property. It was contended that the market value of the property sought to be pre-empted was not 9 more than Rs. 50,000/- for which the learned First Appellate Court directed an enquiry to be conducted by the learned Trial Court. 15. Now by the order passed by the Larger Bench in Sk. Abdul Odud Ali (supra), the matter stands settled that a pre-emptor is required to deposit the entire consideration money as described in the deed sought to be pre-empted, together with the statutory 10% thereof, the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 have not deposited such amount for which the claim of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 for pre-empting a sale without depositing the consideration money mentioned in the deeds sought to be pre-empted cannot be maintained. 16. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the ratio laid down in the Sk. Abdul Odud Ali (supra), the impugned judgment and order passed in Misc. Appeal No. 46 of 2018 is hereby set aside and the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court in Misc. (Pre-emption) Case No. 45 of 2015 is hereby affirmed. 17. Accordingly, the instant revisional application being CO 3975 of 2019 is disposed of. 18. Opposite party nos. 1 and 2 shall be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by them with the learned Trial Court. 19. The learned Trial Court shall endeavour to disburse the amount lying to the credit of Misc. (Pre-emption) Case No. 45 of 10 2015 to the pre-emptors within four weeks from the date of the application for withdrawal. 20. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities. (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.) tbsr/20