Pre-emption plea must include sale deed’s full consideration plus 10% deposit, even if price is alleged inflated: Calcutta HC

The opposite parties filed Misc. (Pre-emption) Case No. 45 of 2015 under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, seeking pre-emption of land in Plot No. 711, Mouza Amlakara, Paschim Medinipur, purchased by the petitioner under a registered sale deed dated 11 August 2015.

The sale deed disclosed consideration of ₹99,500, whereas the pre-emptors alleged that the actual market value was approximately ₹50,000 and deposited ₹50,000 along with 10% compensation.

The Trial Court dismissed the pre-emption application, holding that the vendors had transferred their entire interest in the relevant plot and that the applicants were therefore not entitled to pre-emption.

The First Appellate Court reversed that decision, held that the applicants were co-sharers entitled to pre-emption, and directed the Trial Court to determine the actual market value and receive the amount payable under Section 8.

During the pendency of the revision, a Larger Bench of the Calcutta High Court decided Sk. Abdul Odud Ali v. Emanulla Khan & Ors. on 28 August 2026 and settled the amount required to be deposited with a pre-emption application.

Whether a pre-emption application under Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act is maintainable when the applicant deposits only the alleged actual market value, instead of the consideration mentioned in the sale deed together with the statutory 10% compensation.

Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in directing an enquiry into the actual market value of the property and permitting pre-emption subject to payment of the amount subsequently determined.

Whether the opposite parties were entitled to pre-emption despite their failure to deposit the full statutory amount at the time of filing the application.

The Court applied Sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, which require a pre-emptor to accompany the application with the consideration money mentioned in the sale deed, together with 10% thereon.

The Court relied on the Larger Bench decision in Sk. Abdul Odud Ali v. Emanulla Khan & Ors., which held that a pre-emption application must be rejected at the threshold as not maintainable if it is not accompanied by the entire consideration amount shown in the deed, together with the statutory 10%, irrespective of any allegation that the consideration stated in the deed was inflated or that a lesser amount represented the actual price.

The Court also considered the First Appellate Court’s reliance on Helu Pal v. Master Souvik Sarkar, but held that the subsequent Larger Bench ruling governed the issue.

The sale deed disclosed consideration of ₹99,500. However, the opposite parties deposited only ₹50,000 along with 10%, on the basis that the deed contained an inflated valuation.

Under Sk. Abdul Odud Ali, the alleged inflation of the sale consideration did not dispense with the mandatory requirement of depositing the full amount stated in the deed and the statutory 10% compensation.

Consequently, the First Appellate Court could not defer determination of the amount by directing a market-value enquiry, because the pre-emption application was defective and not maintainable at its inception.

The failure to make the requisite deposit was therefore fatal, irrespective of whether the applicants were otherwise co-sharers entitled to claim pre-emption.

It held that the opposite parties’ application was not maintainable because they had failed to deposit the consideration of ₹99,500 mentioned in the sale deed together with 10% thereon.

The opposite parties were permitted to withdraw the amount deposited before the Trial Court, and the Trial Court was directed to endeavour to disburse that amount within four weeks of the withdrawal application.