AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant application under Article 227 of theConstitution of India is arising out of a judgment in appeal underSection 9 of the West Bengal Land
Reforms Act, 1955.
The original application for pre-emption was made by the opposite parties claiming that the seller of the property to the revisionist is a co-sharer. The
opposite party had claimed a right of the pre-emption against the person who had sold the property to the revisionist.
The 1st Court under Section 8 of 1955 Act found favour with the opposite party and upheld their rights of pre-emption. The revisionist preferred an
appeal under Section 9 of the said Act which upheld the order passed under Section 8 of the said Act as aforesaid.
Being aggrieved with the order and proceedings, the  instant revisional application has been filed.
The principal ground of perversity canvassed by the revisionist is that the 1st Court as well as the appeal court found that only a portion or share of the
plot of land of ‘Rayat’ was transferred and not the entire plot. This according to the revisionist is contrary to the deed of sale by which he
claims title to the property in question.
It is submitted by the opposite parties that the decree for pre-emption as upheld by the Appellate Authority has been put into execution and the
balance 90% of the value of the property has been paid in aid of such decree for pre-emption. The property in question is a residential property and is
described as “VITI†otherwise also called Bastu land in the local vernacular.
The revisionist claims that there is a residential property located on the land in question and that he is residing thereat. The opposite parties strongly
deny the same. They contend that it is vacant land, albeit Bastu. The opposite parties also claim to be in symbolic possession of the property granted
by the executing court.
The instant revisional application shall be admitted subject to maintainability.
Considering the above, I am of the view that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court’s powers are limited to determine any
action by a subordinate court either in excess of jurisdiction or a case of failure to exercise such jurisdiction. The Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India cannot be equated with an appellate court.
The learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
perversity can also be looked into.
In such circumstances, let status quo be maintained with regard to the suit property for a period of three weeks from date. The petitioner shall file by
way of supplementary affidavit and with prior service to the opposite parties the entire records and pleadings before the two authorities below. The
opposite party shall be entitled to supply any other document that may have been omitted by the revisionist, by way of a separate affidavit.
It is further directed that the revisionist shall deposit a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards interest and costs by way of a Demand Draft in favour of the
Registrar General of this Court who shall keep the same maintained in an interest bearing deposit account with a Nationalised Bank. The said deposit
shall be kept renewed until disposal of the revisional application. Such payment shall be made by the revisionist within two weeks from date. In default
of deposit of the aforementioned amount, the order of status quo shall stand vacated and the opposite parties shall be entitled to proceed with the
execution.
Let the matter be listed as “Specially Fixed Matter†on 07.12.2018 at 2.00 P.M. An application being CAN 8922 of 2018 be tagged and listed
alongwith this revisional application on the next date of hearing.
Urgent certified photostat copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary
formalities.