BARASAT EYE HOSPITAL & ORS. versus KAUSTABH MONDAL

Citation: [2019] 15 S.C.R. 1022 · Decided: 17-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1022
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 15 S.C.R.
BARASAT EYE HOSPITAL & ORS.
v.
KAUSTABH MONDAL
(Civil Appeal No.1090 of 2010)
OCTOBER 17, 2019
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 –  ss. 8 and 9 – Right of
purchase by co-sharer or contiguous tenant – Exercise of right of
pre-emption – Pre-condition for – Held: Right of pre-emption is
activated on deposit of the consideration money together with the
further sum of 10% of that amount – Unless such a deposit is made,
the right of a pre-emptor is not even activated – Provisions of s. 8
are explicit and clear in their terms – Inquiry into the stated
consideration, as envisaged in s. 9, is on the deposit of the amount
mentioned in the sale transaction as per sub-section (1) of s. 8 –
Thereafter, transferee is given notice who enters appearance within
the time specified, and proves the consideration money paid for the
transfer “and other sums” – In case pre-emptor raises doubts
regarding the consideration amount, enquiry into the said aspect
can be done only upon payment of the full amount, along with the
application – Thus, when the inquiry is being made by the Munsif,
whether in respect of the stated consideration, or in respect of any
additional amounts which may be payable, the pre-requisite of deposit
of the amount of the stated consideration u/s. 8(1) would be required
to be fulfilled – Provisions of ss. 8 and 9 must be read as they are –
Full amount has to be deposited – Discretion is not left to the
pre-emptor to deposit whatever amount, in his opinion, is the
appropriate consideration, in order to exercise a right of pre-emption
– Amount can always be directed to be refunded, if deposited in
excess – In the instant case, in an application u/ss. 8 and 9,
respondent-pre-emptor did not file any material to substantiate even
the plea on the basis of which, even if an inquiry was held, could a
conclusion be reached that the stated consideration was not the
market value of the land – Thus, the order passed by the High Court
that application u/ss. 8 and 9 could be entertained on short deposit
of consideration amount; and only on final adjudication by the
 [2019] 15 S.C.R. 1022
  1022
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1023
Munsif would the occasion arise to deposit the balance amount, is
set aside – Furthermore, there cannot be any extension of time
granted to the respondent to deposit the balance amount now, to
exercise such a right, however he cannot be deprived of the amount
deposited – Thus, the respondent entitled to the refund of the amount
deposited with interest, if any.
Pre–emption: Right relating to pre-emption – Held: Pre-emptor
has two rights, inherent or primary right, which is right for the
offer of a thing about to be sold; and secondary or remedial right
to follow the thing sold – Secondary right is a right of substitution,
in place of an original vendee – Pre-emptor is bound to show not
only that his right is as good as that of that vendee, but that it is
superior to that of the vendee which has to subsist at the time when
the pre-emptor exercises his right – Right of pre-emption is a very
weak right – Any provision to enforce such right must be strictly
construed.
Interpretation of Statutes: Rule of construction – Held:
Legislative provisions should be read in their plain grammatical
connotation, and only in the case of conflicts between different
provisions would an endeavour have to be made to read them in a
manner that they co-exist and no part of the rule is made
superfluous.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The pre-emptor has two rights: first, the
inherent or primary right, i.e., right for the offer of a thing about
to be sold; and second, the secondary or remedial right to follow
the thing sold. The secondary right of pre-emption is simply a
right of substitution, in place of an original vendee and the pre-
emptor is bound to show not only that his right is as good as that
of that vendee, but that it is superior to that of the vendee. Such
superior right has to subsist at the time when the pre-emptor
exercises his right. Right is “a very weak right.” That being the
character of the right, any provision to enforce such a right must,
thus, be strictly construed. [Paras 11, 12] [1033-G; 1034-A, D]
1.2  Under Section 8(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms
Act, 1955, the right of pre–emption is activated “on deposit of
the consideration money together with the further sum of 10%
BARASAT EYE HOSPITAL & ORS. v. KAUS

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