ABDUL MATIN MALLICK versus SUBRATA BHATTACHARJEE (BANERJEE) AND ORS.

ABDUL MATIN MALLICK versus SUBRATA BHATTACHARJEE (BANERJEE) AND ORS.

Because the pre-emptors did not deposit the entire sale consideration with the additional 10% required by Section 8 when filing the pre-emption application, the application was not maintainable; the High Court was not justified in permitting deposit of the balance at the revision stage, and therefore the appellate and High Court orders allowing/precluding set-aside and the pre-emption application is dismissed.

Parties
Appellant / Pre Emptee: Abdul Matin Mallick; Respondents / Original Pre Emptors: Subrata Bhattacharjee (Banerjee) and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order (co. No. 4266 of 2016; C.o. No. 1153 of 2016)
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Pre Emption, Maintainability of Pre Emption Application, Deposit Requirement Under Section 8 and Inquiry Under Section 9
Land Reform Property Law Civil Procedure Pre Emption Maintainability of Pre Emption Application Deposit Requirement Under Section 8 and Inquiry Under Section 9

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdul Matin Mallick

Appellant / Pre Emptee

Subrata Bhattacharjee (Banerjee) and Ors.

Respondents / Original Pre Emptors

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Order (co. No. 4266 of 2016; C.o. No. 1153 of 2016)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a pre-emption application is maintainable where the pre-emptors did not deposit the entire sale consideration together with an additional 10% as required by Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955
  2. 2 Whether transfer of an entire co-sharer’s undivided share to a person other than a raiyat affects maintainability of a pre-emption application

Ratio Decidendi

Because the pre-emptors did not deposit the entire sale consideration with the additional 10% required by Section 8 when filing the pre-emption application, the application was not maintainable; the High Court was not justified in permitting deposit of the balance at the revision stage, and therefore the appellate and High Court orders allowing/precluding set-aside and the pre-emption application is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgments and orders of the High Court and the First Appellate Court quashed and set aside
  • Pre-emption application submitted by original pre-emptors (respondent Nos.1 to 3) dismissed