22.09.2026 Sl. no. DL/31 Court No. 652 Asraf, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No. CO 4234 of 2025 In the matter of : CHIRANJIB SADHUKHAN … Petitioner VS. DULAL CHANDRA GHOSH … Opposite Party For the Petitioner : Ms. Nabanita Chatterjee Ms. Biswashree Pantha Mr. Sounak Goshwami … Advocates For the Opposite Party : Mr. Abhijit Sarkar Mr. Raja Biswas Mr. T. Halder … Advocate 1. The instant revisional application is directed against an order dated September 16, 2025 passed in Misc. Appeal No.23 of 2022 by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranaghat, Nadia. By dint of the said order, the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranaghat has affirmed the order dated 1st September, 2022 passed in Misc. (Pre-emption) Case no.5 of 2021 by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 2nd Court, Ranaghat. 2. Fact remains that the Trial Court rejected the Misc. (Pre-emption) Case no.5 of 2021 on the ground of non-maintainability insofar as the Trial Court has found in its order dated September 1, 2022 passed in Misc. (Pre-emption) Case no.5 of 2021 that the plaintiff/petitioner had not complied with the statutory condition of depositing appropriate amount of the consideration value. 3. The learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranaghat in its order dated September 16, 2025 has confirmed the said order of the Trial Court finding no illegality in the same. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the amount of consideration value of the impugned deed as determined by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court, is erroneous in terms of settlement entered into between the parties as regards the same. 5. Learned advocate for the opposite party has submitted that as per statutory provision, it is mandatory for the present petitioner/plaintiff to deposit specified percentage of the consideration value of the impugned deed at the time of filing the pre-emption suit before the Trial Court, which statutory condition was not complied with by the present petitioner. He supports the orders of the two Courts as stated above for the reasons that the said orders are in due compliance of the law. 6. Having heard the learned advocates for both the parties and having perused the records, it transpires that the Trial Court recorded in its order dated September 1, 2022 that the consideration value of the impugned deed was Rs.18 lakhs and the present petitioner filed the Misc. (Pre-emption) Case no.5 of 2021 by depositing Rs.10 lakhs along with 10 per cent thereof totaling to an amount of Rs.11 lakhs in terms of Section 9 of the Act of 1955. 7. The provision governing the deposit to accompany an application for pre-emption is principally Section 8(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, read with Section 9 thereof. Section 8(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 provides, that where a portion or share of a raiyat's holding is transferred to a person other than a co-sharer, the eligible person seeking pre- emption may apply for transfer of that portion/share "on deposit of the consideration money together with a further sum of ten per cent, of that amount." Thus, the statutory deposit consists of the entire consideration money stated in the deed of transfer, along with 10% of that consideration money. The statutory language makes the deposit an integral part for the exercise of the right. Once the statutory deposit contemplated by Section 8(1) of the Act is made, the Court issues notice to the transferee. If the Court finds that additional amounts are payable, the pre-emptor may consequently be required to make the further deposit contemplated by Section 9 of the Act. 8. The Supreme Court in Barasat Eye Hospital v. Kaustabh Mondal, reported at (2019) 19 SCC 767 has held that the right of pre-emption under Section 8 is activated only upon deposit of the consideration money together with the additional 10%. The Court rejected the proposition that the pre-emptor could initially deposit what he considered to be the actual consideration and leave the balance to be determined subsequently. The law is thus established that the enquiry under Section 9 of the Act cannot be used to postpone the statutory obligation under Section 8(1) thereof. The full consideration stated in the instrument, together with 10%, has to be unavoidably deposited at the first instance. The Court also made observation that if ultimately the amount deposited is found to be excessive, the excess can be refunded. That, however, does not justify an initial short deposit. 9. The principle was reiterated emphatically by the Supreme Court in Abdul Matin Mallick v. Subrata Bhattacharjee (Banerjee) reported at (2022) 7 SCC 147. The Court has held that deposit of the entire sale consideration with an additional 10% along with the pre-emption application is a statutory and mandatory requirement. It further held that this deposit is a pre-condition to the enquiry under Section 9 of the Act of 1955. Unless the requirement is complied with, the pre-emption application is not maintainable. 10. A Larger Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court dated 28 August 2026 in Sk. Abdul Odud Ali v. Emanulla Khan is also worth noting in this regard. The reference specifically concerned the situation where the pre-emptor alleges that the consideration mentioned in the sale deed is inflated and therefore deposits only the lesser amount which he claims to be the actual consideration, together with 10%.The Larger Bench answered the reference in the affirmative and held that an application under Section 8 of the said Act has to be rejected at the outset as not maintainable if it is not accompanied by the statutory deposit of the consideration amount shown in the sale deed, along with 10% thereon, irrespective of an allegation that the price shown in the deed is inflated and that the actual consideration is lower. 11. Pre-emption is a weak right. It is not an ordinary proprietary right but a preferential right to substitute the pre-emptor in place of the transferee. Consequently, the statutory conditions governing its exercise are strictly construed. Where the statute prescribes the manner in which the right is to be exercised, the statutory prescription must be complied with. The Court cannot substantially rewrite the statutory mechanism by permitting the pre- emptor to enter the adjudicatory process without satisfying the statutory condition. The Supreme Court in Barasat Eye Hospital (supra) has treated the deposit not as a mere procedural formality but as a condition precedent to the activation and maintainability of the pre-emption claim. 12. On the discussion as made above, the orders of the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, appear to be in due conformity with the law to have suffered no illegality as alleged. On the same premise the ground taken by the petitioner in the instant revision appear to be unsustainable. 13. Accordingly, this Court finds that the consideration value as deposited before the Trial Court by the present petitioner amounts to be a shortfall than the value as stipulated in the statutory provision as above. Hence, the determination by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court that due to non-compliance of the statutory provision as mandatory, the petitioner’s case before the Trial Court as well as the Appeal Court should stand as non-maintainable suffers with no illegality or no material irregularity. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the same. 14. On the discussion made as above, the instant revisional application stands dismissed. 15. Let the Trial Court take appropriate steps and pass orders for the petitioner to withdraw the amount already deposited by the petitioner in the Court to the tune of Rs.11 lakhs. 16. All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. 17. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. ( Rai Chattopadhyay, J. )