Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court

"There appears no specific bar that a joint application by the raiyats holding land adjoining the transferred land and claiming pre-emption rights therein, cannot be filed." Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling dated September 30, 2026, held that a joint application for pre-emption by multiple adjoining landowners, supported by a single deposit of consideration money and statutory compensation, is maintainable under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

A bench of Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi observed that the law does not prohibit such joint filings, provided the court determines the entitlement of the respective parties in accordance with the principle of the "longest common boundary."

The dispute arose from the transfer of specific demarcated portions of land to the petitioners via a registered sale deed. Multiple sets of opposite parties, claiming to be owners of adjoining plots, filed a joint application for pre-emption (J. Misc. Case No. 6 of 1999). The trial court allowed the pre-emption in favour of the party having the longest common boundary with the transferred land, a decision subsequently affirmed by the first appellate court.

The court was primarily called upon to determine whether a joint application for pre-emption by two sets of applicants with distinct rights is legally permissible under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. Additionally, the court examined whether partial pre-emption is sustainable when multiple plots are transferred via a single deed, and whether the scope of pre-emption on the ground of vicinage is restricted.

Maintainability of Joint Petitions

The court rejected the petitioner's argument that separate rights require separate applications. Relying on the principle that multiple claimants can collectively seek relief arising from the same transaction, the court noted that the law permits such joinder. The primary requirement remains the deposit of the consideration money plus the statutory 10% amount, which the court can subsequently apportion among the entitled claimants.

No Bar to Joint Application

The court emphasized that the statute is designed to facilitate the right of pre-emption and does not place procedural hurdles on joint applicants who share a common interest in the pre-emption of the same transfer. The court held that such joinder does not cause prejudice or affect the court's jurisdiction to decide preference based on the longest common boundary.

"The only thing that is to be considered by the court while deciding an application for pre-emption is whether the consideration money together with ten per cent thereof has been deposited."

Permissibility of Partial Pre-emption

Addressing the contention regarding partial pre-emption, the court clarified that when several plots are transferred through a single deed, the right of pre-emption on the ground of vicinage applies to the specific plots contiguous to the applicant's land. The court held that the principle of "entire bargain" applicable to co-sharers does not strictly restrict an adjoining landowner from seeking pre-emption for the portion adjacent to their own property.

Scope of Vicinage and Adjoining Land

The court reiterated that an adjoining landowner need not own a common boundary with the entire transferred land to maintain a claim. The requirement is met if the applicant possesses land adjoining the specific portion sought to be pre-empted. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act apply to homestead (Bastu) land, rejecting the notion that such property is excluded from the ambit of Section 8.

"There is no necessity of the adjoining land owner to have a common boundary line with regard to the portion of the plot of land which is sought to be transferred."

Limited Supervisory Jurisdiction

The court underscored that in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it must exercise restraint. Unless the findings of the lower courts are found to be perverse or based on irrelevant considerations, concurrent findings of fact should not be disturbed. Finding no such infirmity in the appellate court's decision, the court affirmed the order of pre-emption.

The Calcutta High Court dismissed the application, upholding the legality of the joint pre-emption application and the order granting pre-emption based on the longest common boundary. This judgment reinforces the procedural flexibility available to adjoining landowners under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955.

Date of Decision: 30 September 2026