08.07.2026 Ct No.2 D/L 70 Mujahid CO 2562 of 2024 Samir Karmakar Vs. Abhishek Ghosh Mr. Gautam Das Mr. Gazi Faruq Hossain …for the petitioner Mr. Ayan Banerjee Mr. Dhiman Banerjee …for the opposite party 1. Present petition has been filed challenging the Order No.38 dated 6th June, 2024 in PMC 12 of 2019. Learned trial court vide impugned order rejected the application of the petitioner/defendant for dismissal of the pre-emption case for the reason of non-deposit as provided in Section 8 sub-section (1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the „Act, 1955). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has fallen into error by dismissing this application, as the combined reading of Section 8 and Section 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 makes it clear that such an application is not maintainable, if the petitioner has not deposited the consideration money together with a further sum of 10% of that amount. 2 3. Learned counsel submits that admittedly the sale deed was for the consideration money i.e. Rs. 7,54,000/- and, therefore the opposite/petitioner was required to deposit Rs. 7,54,000/- along with 10% as required under Section 8(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. Learned counsel submits that admittedly the petitioner has deposited only Rs. 6,46,338/- along with 10% compensation which is in total violation of the law. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Barasat Eye Hospital vs. Kaustabh Mondal, (2019) 19 SCC 767 and Abdul Matin Mallick vs. Subrata Bhattacharjee, (2022) 7 SCC 147. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that petition may be allowed and the impugned order may be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite party has opposed the petition and submits that the opposite party/petitioner has deposited the entire amount in respect of which the pre-emption has been claimed. Learned counsel submits that pre-emption has only been claimed in respect of the part of the subject matter of the sale deed. Petitioner has not claimed pre-emption in respect of entire 11 decimal of land. Learned counsel submits that in fact 1.57 decimal of land, the value of which is around Rs. 1,07,615/- had already been gifted by Mr. Abhaypada Ghosh, i.e. father of the petitioner to the petitioner before the 3 execution of the sale deed. Learned counsel submits that even admittedly the father of the petitioner Mr. Abhaypada Ghosh had not signed the sale deed. 5. The Court has considered the submissions and perused the record carefully. Section 8 sub- section (1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act reads as under:- “8. Right of purchase by co-sharer or contiguous tenant.- (1) If a portion or share of a [plot of land of a raiyat] is transferred to any person other than a [co-sharer of a raiyat in the plost of land ], [the bargadar in the plot of land] may, within three months of the date of such transfer, or] any [co-sharer of a raiyat in the plot of land] may, within three months of the service of the notice given under sub-section (5) of section 5, or any raiyat possessing land [adjoining such plot of land] may, within four months of the date of such transfer, apply to the [Munsif having territorial jurisdiction,] for transfer of the said portion or [share of the plot of land] to him, subject to the limit mentioned in [section 14-M,] on deposit of the consideration money together with a further sum of ten per cent, of that amount: 9[Provided that if the bargadar in the plot of land, a (co-sharer of raiyat in a plot of land] and a raiyat possessing land [adjoining such plot of land] apply for such transfer, the bargadar shall have the prior right to have such portion or [share of the plot of land] transferred to him, and in such a case, the deposit made by other shall be refunded to them:] 10[Provided further that where the bargadar does not apply for such transfer and] a [co-sharer of a raiyat in the plot of land] and a raiyat possessing land [adjoining such plot of land] both apply for such transfer, the former shall have the prior right to have such portion or [share of the plot of land] transferred to him, and in such a case, the deposit made by the latter shall be refunded to him: 4 11[Provided also] that as amongst raiyats possessing lands [adjoining such plot of land] preference shall be given to the raiyat having the longest common boundary with the land transferred.” 6. Bare perusal of this provision makes it clear that the petitioner seeking pre-emption is required to make the application within the time prescribed on deposit of the consideration money together with the further sum of 10% of that amount. Section 9 also makes it clear that the proceedings can be initiated only on the deposit as mentioned in Section 8 sub- Section (1). The Apex Court has also categorically inter alia observed in Barasat Eye Hospital (supra) as under:- “26. Now turning to Section 9 of the said Act, from which, apparently, some judgments of the Calcutta High Court have sought to derive a conclusion that an inquiry into the stated consideration is envisaged. However, the commencement of sub-section (1) of Section 9 is with “on the deposit mentioned in sub-section (1) of Section 8 being made…” Thus, for anything further to happen under Section 9 of the said Act, the deposit as envisaged under Section 8 of the said Act has to be made. It is only then that the remaining portion of Section 9 of the said Act would come into play. 27. The question now is as to what would be the nature of inquiry which has been envisaged to be carried out by the Munsif. If Section 9, as it reads, is perused, then first, the amount as mentioned in the sale transaction is to be deposited, as per sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the said Act. Once that amount is deposited, the next stage is for the Munsif to give notice of the application to the transferee. The transferee thereafter, when enters appearance within the time specified, can prove the consideration money paid for the transfer “and other sums”. Such other sums, if any, are as “properly paid by 5 him in respect of the land including any sum paid for annulling encumbrances created prior to the day of transfer, and rent or revenue, cesses or taxes for any period”. The inquiry, thus envisaged, is in respect of the amount sought to be claimed over and above the stated sale consideration in the document of sale because, in that eventuality further sums would have to be called for, from the pre-emptor. In that context, the additional amount would have to be deposited. Even in the event that a pre-emptor raises doubts regarding the consideration amount, enquiry into the said aspect can be done only upon payment of the full amount, along with the application. In this aspect, the phrase “the remainder, if any, being refunded to the applicant” would include to mean the repayment of the initial deposit made along with the application, if considered to be excess. To give any other connotation to these sections would make both, the latter part of Section 8 of the said Act and the inception part of Section 9 of the said Act, otiose. We do not think such an interpretation can be countenanced.” 7. The Court has no doubt in its mind that the condition of deposit as prescribed in Section 8 is mandatory in nature and there cannot be any relaxation to it. If the party has claimed pre-emption in respect of a transferred land the deposit as required under Section 8 sub-section (1) has to be made within stipulated time. It is a settled proposition that pre-emption is “weak right” and for enforcement of the same the strict compliance of the provisions has to be made. 8. However, the question is that whether this deposit has to be made in respect of the portion for which pre-emption has been claimed or for the entire transferred land, in case the pre-emption has been 6 claimed in respect of part of a transaction. In the present case, the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner/opposite party for a sum of Rs.7,54,000/- in respect of 11 decimal of property. The plea of the petitioner is the predecessor-in- interest of the opposite party, Abhaypada Ghosh, who was the owner of 1.57 decimal out of 11 decimal had also agreed to sell his share. However, admittedly, Mr. Abhaypada Ghosh was not present at the time of execution of the sale deed. The petitioner has claimed pre-emption only in respect of the property actually transferred measuring un-demarcated 9.43 decimal in LR Plot No. 163, LR Khatina Nos. 157, 531, 600, 796, 788, 767 in Mouza Ilipur, JL No. 131 in Sripatipur-Ilipur Gram panchayet under PS Haripal, District Hooghly which has been transferred by the impugned deed being No. 1543 of 2019. The petitioner has specifically stated that the proportionate consideration of 9.43 decimal of land comes to Rs. 6,46,384/- and, therefore, the petitioner along with 10% of such has deposited Rs.7,11,022/-. 9. The learned trial court has taken into account of this and has passed a detailed and reasoned order. It would be advantageous to refer the same:- “On perusal of the impugned sale deed being no.-1543 of 2019 it appears that excluding Abhaypada Ghosh, other 13 co-sharers sold out their property i.e. 11 decimal of land in 16 annas to the O.P and on perusal of the transaction 7 details of the impugned deed it appears that the set forth value of L-1 for 1 decimal of land is aboutn Rs.68,545/- for LR khatian no.-27, L-2 for 1 decimal of land is about Rs.68,545/- for LR khatian no.-157, L-3 for 1 decimal of land is about Rs. 4.11,273/- for LR Khatian no.-531, L- 4 for 1 decimal of land is about Rs.86,545/- for LR khatian no.-600, L-5 for 1 decimal of land is about Rs.68,545/ for LR khatian no.-976, L-6 for 0.22 decimal of land is about Rs.15,080/- for LR khatian no.-788, L-7 for 0.78 decimal of land is about Rs.43,465/- for LR khatian no.-767. The L-1 for 1 decimal of land under L.R khatian no.-27 belonged to Abhaypada Ghosh and he was absent at the time of registration. There is no signature of said Abhaypada Ghosh in the deed appeared. As such it is clear to the Court that the set forth value of of L-1 i.e., Rs.68,545/- in respect of L.R khatian no.-27, recorded in the name of Abhaypada Ghosh was deducted from the total consideration value. The total consideration amount of the impugned sale deed is Rs.7,54,000/- but the petitioner has deposited Rs.6,46,338/- along with 10 per cent interest. As per the impugned deed, Abhaypada Ghosh was the owner of 1 decimal of land in L.R plot no.- 163 under L.R khatian no.-27 but in the petition in para 3 the petitioner stated that he is the son of Abhaypada Ghosh and “out of love and affection Abhaypada Ghosh gifted 1 decimal of property to the petitioner by dint of a deed of gift being no.-3812 of 2018. It is to be mentioned that though Abhaypada Ghosh was the owner of 1/7th share equivalent to 1.5 decimal but his name in the L.R recorded was recorded only in respect of 1 decimal and though his share should have been 0.1428 but the share in the LRROR was only mentioned in respect of 0.0714. By the aforementioned deed of gift the petitioner became the co-sharer in the case plot no.-163 and Abhaypada Ghosh remained the owner of 0.5714 decimal........Abhaypada never intended or gave his consent to sell his share in the property to any person and he never received any advance or entered into any agreement in respect of the share in the case plot. Abhaypada Ghosh never visited the registry office to register any deed in favour of the O.P. Later he came to know that the registration of the sale deed being no.-1543 of 2019 was completed. The petitioner became the co-sharer of the case plot since his acquisition of title by way of gift and the O.P is wholly a stranger purchaser. The petitioner is 8 entitled to pre-empt the property transferred by the impugned deed of sale," On perusal of the gift deed being no.-3812 of 2018 it appears that petitioner is the owner of 1 decimal of land i.e., 0.0714 share out of 11 decimal and gift deed being no.-3410 of 2019 it appears that petitioner is the owner of 0.5714 decimal of land out of 11 decimal i.e., the petitioner is the co-sharer of 1.57 decimal of land out of 11 decimal in the case plot being no.- 163. The total area of land of the impugned sale deed is about 11 decimal under the case plot being no.-163 and the petitioner praying for pre- emption over 9.43 decimal excluding his share of land i.e., 1.57 decimal which he acquired by way of two such gift deeds. Now the petitioner praying for pre-emption for 9.43 decimal of land in respect of LR khatian no.-157,531,600,796,788,767. Considering the above-mentioned discussion the Court came to the conclusion that the total value of the entire 11 decimal of land is Rs.7,54,000/- and as such the value of 1.57 decimal of land is about Rs.1,07,615/-. The petitioner has tendered challan of Rs.6,46,384/- along with 10 per cent compensation. Accordingly, the value of the case property i.e., for 9.43 decimal is Rs.6,46,385/- (Rs. 7,54,000 Rs.1,07,615 = 6,46,385/-). Hence, it is clear to the Court that there is no short-fall consideration on the part of the petitioner for 9.43 decimal of land in respect of LR khatian no.-157,531,600,796,788,767.” 10. It is a settled proposition that the revionsal jurisdiction though, wide in nature has to be exercised in its circumspection. The revisional court can interfere only if there is a manifest illegality or perversity in the order of the learned trial court. 11. The court is of the view that the petitioner in pre-emption case is bound to deposit the consideration amount along with 10% only of the property for which pre-emption has been sought or 9 the transferred land. The court finds that there is no illegality or perversity in the order of the learned trial court. 12. Accordingly, CO 2562 of 2024 is dismissed. (Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)