Ashis Kumar Chakraborty JUDGMENT
Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.
1. This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, at the instance of the pre-emptor in a proceeding for pre-emption under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") is directed against the judgment and order dated May 18, 2015 passed by the learned District Judge, Uttar Dinajpur, at Raiganj.
2. The petitioner filed the pre-emption case, being Misc. Case. No. 90 of 2010 under Section 8 of the said Act, against the opposite parties for pre-emption of the sale effected through the registered sale deed No. 4039 dated June 11, 2010 executed by Ratna Paul, Bibhuti Paul and Adyanath Paul in favour of the opposite parties on the ground of being co-sharers of the suit land, as also as the adjoining owner of the suit land. The suit land in respect of which the petitioner has sought to enforce his right of pre-emption is .07 acres out of .014 acres of land at J.L. No. 146, L.R. Khatina No. 128,659 of R.S. and L.R. Plot No. 124.
3. The opposite parties contested the above pre-emption case filed by the petitioner and filed their written statement. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties, by order February 17, 2014 the learned trial Judge allowed the pre-emption application filed by the petitioner, subject to the payment of balance of the actual consideration amount of Rs. 88,000/- to the Court within thirty days from that date. The learned trial Judge further declared that the right, title and interest of the opposite parties, by virtue of the registered sale deed No. 4039 for the year 2010, do vest in the petitioner subject to the payment of the said remaining consideration amount and the possession of the suit land be delivered by the opposite parties to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of the learned trial Judge, the present opposite parties carried the same in appeal, being Misc. Appeal No. 15/14 before the learned District Judge, Uttar Dinajpur, at Raiganj. From a copy of the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the opposite parties in the said appeal it is clear that they did not assail the order dated February 17, 2014 passed by the learned trial Judge on the ground that the suit land was not correctly described by the petitioner in his application under Section 8 of the said Act.
4. By judgment and order dated May 18, 2015 the learned appellate Court below, however, held that pre-emption case filed by the petitioner under Section 8 of the said Act was not maintainable for incorrect description of the suit land and dismissed the pre-emption case of the petitioner. The learned appellate Court below, however, held that in the result the appeal fails and ordered that the Misc. Appeal No. 15/14 is dismissed on contest but without cost. The learned appellate Court below, further ordered that the impugned judgment and decreed dated February 17, 2014 passed by the learned trial Judge in Misc. Case No. 90/2010(P) stands set aside. It is the said judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court below, which has been challenged in this revisional application.
5. From the affidavit of service filed on behalf of the petitioner it appears that the copies of this application were forwarded to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 by speed post with acknowledgment due, but the postal department returned the envelope forwarded to the opposite party No. 2 with an endorsement "refused". It further appears that as directed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on January 06, 2016 the petitioner forwarded a copy of the revisional application to the learned advocate representing the opposite parties before the learned Court below, but the said learned advocate refused to receive the same on the ground that the opposite parties are not keeping any contact with him. The opposite party No. 1 is the mother of the opposite party No. 2 and........