ABDULLA KABIR versus MD. NASIRUDDIN

Citation: [1989] 1 S.C.R. 396 · Decided: 01-02-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.C. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
ABDULLA KABIR 
v. 
MD. NASIRUDDIN 
FEBRUARY 1, 1989 
!B.C. RAY ANDS. RA1NAVEL PANDIAN, JJ.J 
West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955 Sections2(6),(7) 3-A .and 8. 
West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act 1949 Section 2(4)(a) 
and (24). 
West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act 1953 Section 2(g). Applica-
tion for pre-emption-Maintainability of-'Holding of raiyat'-
Homestead of agriculturist even though not standing on agricultural 
land to be treated as agricultural land. 
An application for pre-emption was tiled under the provisions of 
section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 hY the responde11t 
to pre-empt a plot of land sold to the appellant by a Kobala dated 
May 16, 1974 by a co-sharer having 1/4 interest in the plot, 
The land in qnestion was owned by .an agriculturist and tie used to 
keep his agricultural implements in the said property. Ile als11 possessed 
other agricultural lands as agricultnrists and in occup311cy raly~tl 
interest. The suit property was recorded in his name as 'Raiyat Sthiti· 
ban' and the classification ofland was recorded as 'Bari' i.e. homestead 
of the said agriculturist. On September 20, 1967 the land was sold by a 
registered Kobala to 4 persons, and on October 28, 1968 one of ttie 
persons sold his share to the predecessor of the respondent. On the 
basis of this Kobala it was alleged that he was a co-sharer. 
The respondent tiled an application for pre··emption under sectio11 
8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. The appellant contested 
the same contending in the written statement that the respondent was 
neither co-sharer of the holding nor an adjoining owner and that the 
disputed property is non-agriculture tenancy' that the petition was 
barred by limitation as the respondent was all along aware of the sale of 
the property and that the story of his coming to know only after taking 
copy of the sale dee!I was absolutely false. 
396 
t 
+ 
.... 
ABDULLA KABIR v. MD. NASIRUDDIN 
397 
The Trial Court held that the respondent was a co-sharer and was 
entitled to pre-empt, the application of pre-emption was not barred by 
limitation as it was tiled within a period of 3 years of the knowledge of 
tlte same ;is no notice of the sale was served on the respondent. The 
Trial Court further held that the land was non-agricultural land and as 
S.l!Ch the application for pre-emption under section 8 was not maintain-
~ble. The miscellaneous case was accordingly dismissed. 
The respondent filed an appeal, and the Additional District Judge 
reverse\! the findings of the Trial Court, and held that the suit property 
was recorded as raiyati interest in the R.S. Record of Rights and being 
!be homestead land of an agriculturist, the application for pre-emption 
un<!er section 8 was maintainable. The appeal was allowed and the 
j11dgment of the trial court was set aside. 
The appellant filed a revision petition in the High Court. During 
its pendency he made an application for amendment claiming alterna-
tive relief for pre-emption under section 24 of the West Bengal Non-
A,gricllltural Tenancy Act, 1949. The High Court held that even if the 
land was non-agricultural land, pre-emption could be granted under 
section 24 of the W.B, Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, but dismissed the 
petiti9n 011 the groom! that tbere was no jurisdictional defect or error 
entitling the Court to interfere in revision. 
In the appeal to this Court by special leave, it was contended on 
behalf of the appellant that the land has been recorded as in the R.S. 
Record of rights as non-agricultural land, and that the Trial Court had 
rigbtly held that Section 8 of the Land Reforms Act was not applicable 
to such a holding. The decision of the High Court to the effect that the 
finding recorded by the Appellate Court to the contrary suffered from 
no jurisdictional error was therefore wholly unwarranted. Relying on 
Eyachhin Ali Naskar v. Golap Gazi, [1979) 83 CWN 87 it was contended 
that nature of holding had to determined with reference to the user of 
land comprised in the holding. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD: I. The application for pre-emption under sec(i9n 8 
(If Wes\ Bengal Land Reforms Act was properly allowed hy !l!e 
lower a.PPe!!!lte court. al!\l tile sai!i orller · was maintained by ttii:ll 
com:\. There is np i11firmity ii! thjs finding, an!l 
III~ ~~mf ··i~ 
11Phe!!l, l4QQQ-l:!] 
. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] 1 S.C.R. 
2. The

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.