The High Court dismissed a revisional application challenging a title appeal judgment that affirmed a lower court's rejection of a pre-emption petition under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, as the petitioner had not deposited the entire consideration money.
Revisional application dismissed without any order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
20 25.7.2023 Ct. No. 236 SB
C.O. 2590 of 2008
In the matter of : Smt. Moni Halder
Mr. Arup Krishna Das … for the petitioner
Heard Mr. Das learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.
This application challenges the judgement and decree passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Asansol in Title Appeal No. 43 of 2001 /07 of 2001. By the impugned judgement learned Appellate Court was pleased to affirm the judgement passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting the application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act. The petitioner initiated the proceeding under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act to exercise his right for pre-emption as co-sharer but did not deposit the entire consideration money before the learned Trial Court.
Mr. Das with all fairness submits that in view of the judgement pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue it is really difficult for the petitioner to tide over the situation. It goes without saying that mandate of the Hon’ble Apex Court is binding on all the Courts in the country, therefore, we cannot ignore the mandate that unless entire consideration money is deposited a proceeding under Section
8 of West Bengal Land Reforms Act cannot be maintained. [See Barasat Eye Hospital and Ors. vs. Kaustabh Mondal
2
(2019) 9 SCC 767 & Abdul Matin Mallick vs. Subrata Bhattacharjee (Banerjee) & Ors. (2022) 7 SCC 147]
Under such circumstances, this revisional application merits no further consideration and is dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.
(Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a pre-emption proceeding under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act can be maintained without depositing the entire consideration money.
Whether the recent Supreme Court mandate bars the continuation of such proceedings absent full deposit.
Whether the revisional application deserves further consideration given the legal position on deposit requirements.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Barasat Eye Hospital and Ors. vs. Kaustabh MondalFollowed¶8
Barasat Eye Hospital and Ors. vs. Kaustabh Mondal (2019) 9 SCC 767 · Who else cites this
Abdul Matin Mallick vs. Subrata Bhattacharjee (Banerjee) & Ors.Followed¶10
Abdul Matin Mallick vs. Subrata Bhattacharjee (Banerjee) & Ors. (2022) 7 SCC 147 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Moni Halder
State
Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
