Preemptee challenged the maintainability of a preemption application because the full consideration price was not deposited initially; the shortfall was made good within the limitation period. Though the trial court's reasoning was disapproved, the revisional court found the conclusion correct and dismissed the Article 227 petition without 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.
13.08.2024 Item No.9, DL
Ct.19
A.J.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
C.O. 2820 of 2024
Sri Jatiram Mondal -VsMohanlal Lakhmani
Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, Mr. Anirban Das, Ms. Poulomi Chakraborty. ……for the petitioner.
The preemptee in a proceeding under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 is the petitioner of the instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which is directed against order dated June 29, 2024 passed by the 3rd Court of the Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Baruipur, District : 24-Parganas (South) in the Miscellaneous (Preemption) Case No.48 of 2019.
The petitioner had raised an objection as to the maintainability of the application for preemption on the ground that the entire consideration price of the disputed sale was not deposited along with the application for preemption.
The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned has overruled the said objection on the ground that by way of amendment the valuation of the application for preemption since has been
2
changed, the subsequent deposit has not been affected the maintainability of the proceeding.
The shortfall in depositing the entire consideration price was made good within the period of limitation prescribed to preempt a sale on the ground of adjoining ownership.
This Court though does not approve the reasoning of the order impugned but, conclusion being correct, is not inclined to interfere with it.
C.O. 2820 of 2024 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Biswajit Basu, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether failure to deposit the entire consideration price with the preemption application, later cured within the limitation period, affects its maintainability under Sections 8 and 9 WB Land Reforms
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Jatiram Mondal
Mohanlal Lakhmani
Biswajit Basu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
