Legal Representatives Smt. ... vs Bakul Rani Nath & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 3601 Cal

27.06.2022 (D/L-10) Ct.-18 (Susanta)

C.O. 3112 of 2004 With I.A. No. CAN 2 of 2006 (Old CAN No. 1257 of 2006)

Puspa Rani Biswas, since deceased, her heirs and legal representatives Smt. Tapati Sarkar & Ors.

-Vs-

Bakul Rani Nath & Ors.

Mr. Sabyasachi Mukhopadhyay, Ms. Koushikee Banerjee, .... For the Petitioners.

Mr. Soumyadeep Biswas, ... For the O.P. Nos. 1-4.

The pre-emptees in a proceeding under Section

8 of the Land Reforms Act, 1955 are the petitioners of

the present application under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India.

The opposite parties sought to preempt the

disputed sale on the ground of vicinage.

The application for preemption being Misc. Case

No. 45 of 1991 was allowed by the 1st Court of

learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Krishnagar,

District- Nadia vide order dated December 21, 1998.

The appeal Court below by order impugned

dated June 01, 2004 has dismissed the appeal being

Misc. Appeal No. 9 of 1999 against the said order of

the learned Trial Judge.

In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of Barasat Eye Hospital Vs.

Kaustabh Mondal reported in (2019) 19 SCC 767,

to maintain an application for pre-emption the pre-

emptor is required to deposit the entire consideration

price of the sale sought to be pre-empted along with

the application for pre-emption.

In the present case as it appears from the record

that the preemptor did not deposit the entire

consideration price of the impugned sale at the time

of filing of the application for pre-emption, as such,

the application for pre-emption is liable to be

dismissed on the said ground alone.

The order impugned for the aforesaid reason is

not sustainable and is set aside accordingly,

consequently, Misc. Case no. 9 of 1999 is dismissed.

C.O. 3112 of 2004 is thus allowed without any

order as to costs.

The preemptors are at liberty to withdraw the

deposited consideration price. If applied for, the

learned Trial Judge is requested to take steps for the

disbursement of the said money.

I.A. CAN 2 of 2006 (Old CAN No. 1257 of

2006)

This is a disposed of application wrongly

appearing in the list, no order need be passed on it.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to

compliance with all requisite formalities.

(Biswajit Basu, J.)