Practice set Having conquered almost the entire Europe, except Britain Germany attacked the Soviet Union, despite the Non-Aggression Pact, on 22 June 1941. As mentioned before, Hitler had always coveted the vast territory and resources of the Soviet Union. He thought that the destruction of the Soviet Union would take about eight weeks. Hitler had grossly underestimated the strength of the Soviet Union. In the first phase of the war with the Soviet Union, Germany, achieved significant victories Vast areas of the Soviet Union ware devastated, Leningrad was besieged and German troops were marching towards Moscow. However, in spite of the initial German successes, the German onslaught was halted. The Soviet Union had built up her industrial and military strength. She resisted the German invasion heroically and the German hopes of a quick victory were thwarted. With the German invasion of the Soviet Union, a new vast theater of war had been opened. An important development that follo...
Legal Matter 3.
The petitioner has claimed pre-emption on
the ground of Co-ownership as well by virtue of being a contiguous land owner.
My foregoing discussions categotically reveal that the petitioner is a
co-sharer as well as a contiguous land owner. Section 8 of the W.B.L.R. Act,
1955 mandates that the notified co-sharers are required to apply for preemption
as co-sharers within a period of three months of the transfer of land from the
date of service of notice.
The Hon'ble Court, in Adhir Kumar Guchait vs. Maya Rani Majhi reported in 2009 (4) CHN 597,
expounded that Section 5(5) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 does not
contemplate service of notice upon the adjoining land owner. It is also not
provided in the said Act that the adjoining land owner will get benefit in case
of non-service. In case of pre-emption, non-notified co-sharers and raiyats
owning land adjacent to the plot of land which has been transferred, do not
stand in the same position and the benefit available to the co-sharer raiyat
cannot be claimed by the adjoining land owner.
It
is manifest from Exhibit-A that the registration of the deed in question
was completed on 06/02/1997 as per the provision of sec. 61 of the Registration
Act while the application for pre-emption was filed on 21/05/1997. Thus, the impugned application, in the
capacity of a contiguous land owner is definitely filed within the limitation
period. Having said that, it would not be out of place to discuss the
proposition of law with regard to a non-notified co-sharer and the period of
limitation contemplated therefor.
Admittedly,
no notice under section 5(5) of the W.B.L.R. Act, 1955, was served upon the
petitioner prior to transfer of the property in question. The Hon'ble Court in Fuzle Hakani vs. Sk. Arsed Ali reported
in 89 CWN 1081, held that where no notice of transfer on a co-sharer was
served as contemplated by Section 5(5) of the WBLR Act, 1955, the period of
limitation of three months for filing a pre-emption application as prescribed
by Section 8 of the said Act was not
applicable. This court is also fortified in this view by judicial
pronouncements in Ram Kumar
Kajaria-vs.-M/s. Chandra Engineering (India) Ltd. reported in 76 CWN 426
Dwijapada Haldar vs. Prafulla Chandra Haldar, reported in AIR 1972 Cal
409 and in Gangadhar Bhandari vs. Lalmohon Mukherjee
reported in (1978) 1 CLJ 451. The law is also well settled that
Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to proceedings under Section 8
of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.
In the case of Ajit Mondal vs. Tapan Kumar Ghana, (2013) 3 WBLR (Cal)
194, the Hon'ble Court observed that a petition under section 8 of the Act
should be regarded as a plaint in a suit and as a consequence,
Article 137 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act will have
no manner of application thereto. The Hon'ble Court further observed that in
case of a co-sharer of a transferor raiyat to whom the substantive right under
section 8 of the WBLR Act has been extended, the period of limitation would not
start to run if no notice has been served and if despite exercise of due
diligence by such co-sharer, the factum of the transfer remained unknown to
such co-sharer by reason of any fraud perpetrated on such co- sharer or on account
of any mistake. But upon the period of limitation beginning to run, the
co-sharer of a transferor right in the relevant plot of land will have a period
of three months within which the right conferred on him under
section 8 of the WBLR Act has to be exercised.
Comments
Post a Comment