12.06.2025 Mithun List –D/L Sl. No. 162. Ct. No. 06. CO 1249 of 2025 Amit Ratan Hazra -Vs.- Asok Kumar Rakshit & Ors. Mr. Abhilash Chatterjee, Mr. Akash Adak …for the petitioner Mr. Ayan Banerjee, Mr. Dhiman Banerjee …for opposite party no.1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the pre-emptee in a proceeding under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and is directed against an order being No.12 dated March 13, 2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Chandernagore, District: Hooghly in Miscellaneous Pre- Emption Case No.7 of 2024. By the order impugned the application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure stood rejected. The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the opposite party filed the application for local investigaion for the purpose of collecting the evidence. He submits that whether the opposite party has the longest common boundary or not can be decided on the basis of documentary evidence. 2 Mr. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party submits that both the petitioner and the opposite parties share common boundaries with that of the suit property. He, therefore, submits that unless the measurement of the boundaries as per the points of the local inspection is made, the dispute involved in the pre- emption case cannot be decided. Mr. Banerjee places reliance upon the decision of Coordinate Benches in Saranan Mondal and another- Vs.-Bejoy Bhushan Ghosh reported at AIR 1979 Cal 174 in support of his contention that the second proviso to Section 8(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 applies in a case where the pre-emptee and pre- emptor are both possessing lands adjoining the land transferred. Heard the learned Advocates for the parties and perused the materials placed. After going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the pre-emptor and the pre-emptee are claiming possession of lands adjoining the land transferred. The Co-ordinate Bench in Saranan Mondal (Supra) held that the second proviso of Section 8(1) of the 1955 Act will also apply to a case where the pre- emptee and pre-emptor are both possessing lands adjoining the land transfer. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view that for the purpose of deciding as 3 to amongst the raiyat’s possessing land adjoining the land transferred which of them is having the longest common boundary with the land transferred, local investigation is absolutely necessary. The learned Trial Judge was right in allowing the application for local investigation. This Court is not inclined to interfere with such order. Accordingly, C.O.1249 of 2025 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities. (Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.)