4. Kishan Kumar Sureka vs Buddhadeb Ghosh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4165 Cal

CO 2015 of 2015 Items-1-

07-07-2023

4. Kishan Kumar Sureka Versus Buddhadeb Ghosh sg Ct. 8 With

CO 2037 of 2015 Pawan Kumar Surekha @ Paban Kumar Surekha Versus Buddhadeb Ghosh

With

CO 206 of 2020 Monika Mahanti Versus Akash Mahanty & Anr.

With

CO 3423 of 2016 Buddhadeb Ghosh Versus Kishan Kumar Surekha

With

CO 3424 of 2016 Buddhadeb Ghosh Versus Pawan Kumar Surekha

Mr. Sounak Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Abhirup Halder, Adv.

Mr. Anirban Saha Ray, Adv.

Mr. Sounak Mondal, Adv.

...for the petitioners in CO 2015/2015 CO 2037 of 2015 and CO 206/2020

Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, Adv. Mr. Surya Prasad Chattopadhyay, Adv. Mr. Arjun Samanta, Adv.

Mr. Ankit Chatterjee, Adv.

...for the petitioners in CO 3423/2016 and CO 3424 of 2016

We have heard Mr. Saktinath Mukherji, learned Senior

Counsel in extenso.

One of the issues came up for consideration is whether in

view of the judgment of the coordinate Bench in an earlier

reference namely, Naymul Haque vs. Allauddin Sk. reported in

2018 SCC OnLine Cal 11495, these matter are required to be

heard by a Larger Bench. In fact, Naymul Haque (supra) was

heard along with several other matters involving similar issues.

Paragraph 11 of Naymul (supra) is set out hereinunder:

"In the case of Chhana Rani Saha (supra), the contiguous land-owner's right of pre-emption was upheld in a situation where the entire land in question was sold. This is the opinion of the learned Single Judge in the cases of Biswanath Sarkar (supra) and Sk. Sajhan Ali (supra). The word "or" in Biswanath Sarkar (supra) and Sk. Sajhan Ali (supra) have been construed to be disjunctive. The view of the learned Single Judge in Kinkar Mahato (supra) was that right of pre-emption could be exercised only when a co- sharer raiyat transferred a portion of the share of his interest in the plot of land. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhana Rani Saha (supra), the word "or" has to be read as "or" only, and not "of". This answers the reference."

The learned Counsel for the appearing parties have

expressed their views that in view of the observation made in

Naymul Haque (supra), these matters are required to be heard by a

Larger Bench.

We are in agreement with the submission made by Mr.

Saktinath Mukherji, Learned Senior Advocate and the Advocates

for the appearing parties. We are of the view that the observations

made in paragraph 11 require reconsideration. We are also of the

view that the reference made by Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya

in CO 21 of 2019 (Sajidul Khandakar vs. Bhabani Biswas)

decided on 29th August, 2019 is required to be heard by a Larger

Bench.

In view thereof, let all the applications be placed before the

Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constitution of a Larger Bench.

We record our appreciation for the assistance we received

from Mr. Saktinath Mukherji, Senior Advocate being ably assisted

by Mr. Bhaskar Ghose, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rwitendra Banerjee,

Advocate and Mr. Shubrojyoti Mookherjee, Advocate.

(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Soumen Sen, J.)