Pre-emption Rights Must Be Exercised With Full Compliance: Calcutta High Court Rejects Petition for Failing to Deposit Entire Sale Consideration

“Right of Pre-emption Does Not Arise Until Full Sale Amount and 10% Extra Is Deposited at Filing”, Calcutta High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an appellate decision that had rejected a pre-emption application filed under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. Justice Bibhas Ranjan De ruled that the petitioners’ failure to deposit the full consideration amount along with the statutory 10% additional sum at the time of filing rendered their pre-emption claim legally untenable. The Court emphasized that such procedural compliance is not a mere formality but a substantive precondition.

The petitioners had filed a pre-emption application in 1997 claiming entitlement to land transferred through three separate sale deeds by asserting themselves as both co-sharers and adjoining landowners. The land, part of Municipal Holding No. C/177, originally belonged to one Onkar Mal Khadia and devolved upon his heirs. The petitioners acquired part of the land through purchase and claimed rights over additional land later sold to respondent Santi Devi Agarwal without prior notice.

The pre-emption application was initially allowed by the Trial Court, which held the petitioners to be co-sharers. However, the Appellate Court reversed that decision, finding the petitioners to be separate raiyats after a family partition and rejecting their co-sharership claim under the definition of Section 2(6) of the WBLR Act.

The central issue examined by the Calcutta High Court was whether the petitioners had fulfilled the statutory requirement of depositing the full consideration amount plus 10% at the time of filing their pre-emption application.

Justice Bibhas Ranjan De unequivocally held:

“It stands as an incontrovertible matter of record that the petitioner, in manifest contravention of the statutory imperatives enshrined under Section 8 of the WBLR Act, failed to tender the complete consideration amount…at the crucial juncture of instituting the pre-emption proceedings.”

The Court ruled that filing a pre-emption application without such deposit renders the petition non-maintainable ab initio, as the statutory right to pre-empt does not even arise in such circumstances.

“Unless such deposit is made, right of pre-emptor does not even trigger off.”

In rejecting the petitioners’ attempt to argue entitlement on the basis of partial deposit and to selectively pre-empt only one of the three sale deeds, the Court remarked:

“This selective approach, attempting to pre-empt land from a single deed while making insufficient deposit, fundamentally contravenes the statutory requirements laid down under Section 8 of the WBLR Act.”

The Court examined the legislative scheme and binding precedents including Barasat Eye Hospital v. Kaustabh Mondal, (2019) 19 SCC 676, and Abdul Matin Mallick v. Subrata Bhattacharjee, (2022) 7 SCC 147. Citing these rulings, it reiterated:

“The deposit of the full amount within the time is sacrosanct... It is not a case where the amount is deficient but deposited later; in this case, the right itself never triggered.”

The Court clarified that even though co-sharership or adjacency could be argued substantively, these factors become irrelevant when the pre-condition of full statutory deposit is unmet:

“While matters of co-sharership and supplementary evidence may cast their shadows, they cannot emerge as the determining beacons of justice when the application stands on fragile ground.”

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the revision petition and ordered refund of the deposited amount to the petitioners with applicable interest, if earned.

This decision by the Calcutta High Court sends a strong message that statutory mandates under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act are to be strictly observed. By striking down a pre-emption application filed without complete deposit, the Court emphasized that procedural compliance is central to asserting substantive rights. The ruling is a landmark clarification of the requirement under Section 8 of the WBLR Act and serves as binding guidance for future claimants seeking pre-emptive rights in land transfers.

Date of Decision: May 22, 2025