Local Investigation Should Not Substitute for Documentary Evidence in Proving Pre-emption Claims – Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Order for Local Investigation

In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has overturned a lower court’s decision that allowed a local investigation to determine the adjacency of properties in a preemption claim under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. Hon’ble Justice Shampa Sarkar emphasized that proving contiguity should rely predominantly on documentary evidence and not on physical inspections which could inadvertently assist a preemptor in substantiating their claim.

The revisional application challenged an earlier decision that approved a local investigation to ascertain whether the properties involved were adjacent, which is a prerequisite for exercising preemption rights under the mentioned Act. The judgment clarified the use of local investigations, which should not replace the mandatory documentary evidence required to establish such claims.

The dispute originated when the respondent applied for preemption of a land piece contending adjacency to their property. The petitioner contested the claim, arguing that the property in question did not share a boundary with the respondent’s land, as evident from their respective deeds and documented property maps.

Legality of Local Investigation: Justice Sarkar noted, “Local investigations should be reserved for cases involving unclear boundaries or identity disputes of land.” The court highlighted that such measures are unnecessary and inappropriate when documentary proof can establish claims, as required in preemption cases under the Act.

Obligation of Proving Contiguity: The judgment stressed that the onus to prove adjacency lies with the preemptor using title deeds, mouza maps, and other relevant documents. Justice Sarkar remarked, “The court cannot aid a preemptor by ordering local investigations merely to supplement the lack of documentary evidence which is paramount in proving adjacency in preemption claims.”

Implications of Allowing Local Investigation: The court criticized the lower court’s decision for potentially enabling the preemptor to ‘fish’ for evidence to support his claim. The court opined, “Allowing such an investigation undermines the procedural necessity that parties substantiate their claims through comprehensive and permissible evidence.”

Decision: The High Court decisively set aside the lower court’s order permitting the local investigation and reinforced the necessity of relying on documentary evidence over physical inspections to resolve property adjacency in preemption rights cases. The revisional application was allowed, reversing the impugned order.

Date of Decision: May 13, 2024

Sayan Sarkar vs. Purnendu Banerjee & Anr.