A vicinage pre-emptor may obtain partial pre-emption of contiguous plots sold under one deed.

The vendors sold demarcated portions of several plots, including plots 1398, 1397 and 1403, to the petitioner by a single registered deed dated 20 October 1998.

Two groups of adjoining raiyats jointly applied for pre-emption under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, depositing the consideration money and statutory 10% compensation together.

The trial court allowed pre-emption in favour of opposite party no. 1 in respect of specified portions of plots 1398 and 1402, finding that party to be the adjoining raiyat with the longest boundary; the appellate court affirmed that order.

The petitioner challenged the concurrent decisions under Article 227, disputing the joint application and deposit, partial pre-emption, and the availability of vicinage-based pre-emption.

Whether separate groups of adjoining raiyats could jointly seek pre-emption and make a common deposit of the consideration money and statutory compensation.

Whether partial pre-emption was permissible where several plots had been transferred under a single deed.

Whether a raiyat could claim pre-emption on the ground of vicinage in the absence of a co-sharer, and whether an adjoining raiyat had to share a common boundary with the transferred land.

Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 gives specified eligible claimants a right to seek transfer of a portion or share of a raiyat’s holding sold to a non-co-sharer; among adjoining raiyats, preference is given to the raiyat with the longest common boundary.

Section 9(1) requires deposit of the consideration money and a further 10%, while Section 9(3) permits the court to apportion the holding when granting relief to more than one eligible applicant.

Sadhan Chandra Samanta v. Jaladhi Bala Dasi supports joinder of applicants where their claims arise from the same transaction and raise common questions.

Satish Chandra Kuila v. Kalipada Maity supports partial pre-emption, on vicinage grounds, in respect of plots contiguous to the pre-emptor’s land.

Bhagwati Prasad Sah v. Bhagwati Prasad Sah applies the “whole bargain” principle to co-sharer pre-emption, not to a claim based on vicinage.

Bahastulla Sk. v. Abdul Gafur Sk. states that an adjoining landowner need not have a common boundary with the particular portion transferred.

Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction does not ordinarily permit reappreciation of facts absent perversity, an error apparent on the record, or another recognised ground for intervention.

The Court found no statutory bar to the two groups joining in one application or making a common deposit; Section 9(3) contemplated apportionment, and Sadhan Chandra Samanta supported joinder where claims arose from the same transaction.

It rejected the petitioner’s whole-bargain argument because the claim was based on vicinage, not co-sharer status, and followed Satish Chandra Kuila in allowing pre-emption only for the plots contiguous to the claimant’s land.

The authorities concerning absence of a co-sharer were distinguished as addressing co-sharer-based claims, whereas the application here rested on adjoining ownership.

The Court also relied on Bahastulla Sk. in rejecting the contention that a common boundary with the transferred portion was indispensable.

Finding no basis under Article 227 to disturb the concurrent findings, the Court declined supervisory interference.

It found no merit in the revision and affirmed the appellate judgment and order; C.O. 2164 of 2011 was disposed of, together with any connected applications.