Case: Chhana Rani Saha Vs. Mani Pal @ Kaltu Pal

The land in question is a plot measuring 3.755 decimal. It was sold by a common vendor by the name of Bijindra Burman, who had earlier sold a plot of land measuring 2.060 decimal to the appellant. Bijindra Burman was entitled to sell his entire plot measuring 3.775 decimal to the respondent Mani Pal @ Kaltu Pal. He did so without first offering this plot to the appellant Chhana Rani.2. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellant Chhana Rani is the owner of the contiguous piece of land, which she earlier purchased from Bijindra Burman. There is also no dispute about the fact that she is not aof the plot in question, which is the subject matter of the present proceedings. That Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 of the confers on a contiguous owner on a raiyat, who is a contiguous owner, the right toand purchase a land which is being sold, is not disputed.3. The appellant applied under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mathabhanga as a contiguous tenant. She also claimed to be aThis capacity as ais not relevant any more since admittedly she is not ain respect of the land in question. The Civil Judge (Junior Division) found that the appellant is an owner of contiguous land in question. That the vendor Bijindra Burman did not give due notice of the proposed sale transaction to the appellant. She learnt of it from others. The trial Court, therefore, allowed the application and conferred the right, title and interest of the land in question on the appellant along with possession of the suit land.4. The Appellate Court reversed the aforesaid order on the ground that the appellant is not aof the land and further that the vendor Bijindra Burman did not sell a portion or share of the land but has sold the entire land in question.5. The High Court has agreed with the Appellate Court and has held likewise. Hence, this appeal.

Court's reasoning:
7. Section 8 confers a right ofon a bargardar that is a tenant of the land, or aof the raiyat who owns the land and on any other raiyat possessing land adjoining such plot of land. One of the conditions on which a right ofmay be claimed is where a portion or share of land or any other raiyat is transferred to any person other than aof a raiyat in the plot of the land. That is to say, if a land is held by twoand one of theseeks to transfer a portion or share belonging to him to another person, the othermay claim a right ofBut this, however, does not exhaust the entire section. A similar right ofis also conferred on a raiyat, who possesses an adjoining plot of land, This is the appellants case. There is no dispute that the appellant is a raiyat possessing adjoining plot of land and was entitled to assert his right ofIn fact he was rightly allowed the ownership of the land in question by the trial Court, since it was found the vendor did not give due notice of sale of the land to the appellant and, in fact, did not wish to sell the land to the appellant. This aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked by the High Court, which has decided the case only on the basis that the vendor did not transfer a portion or share of the land in question and the appellant was not a