SEN, J. ( 1 ) THIS Revisional application is at the instance of the pre-emptee and it arises out of an application for pre-emption under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act which has been allowed concurrently by two courts. ( 2 ) LAND measuring 0. 04 acres out of R. S. Plot No. 2019 Mouza Deuli P. S. Balda, District Midnapore was sold on July 8, 1976 to the pre-emptee petitioner before us by Nanibala Maity and that was the subject matter of pre-emption at the instance of Sushil Kumar Saha, the pre-emptor who is admittedly a co-sharer of the holding by purchase. ( 3 ) THE said application for pre-emption was resisted by the pre-emptee on several grounds all of which failed when both the courts concurrently allowed the claim for pre-emption. For our present revisional application two of the defences are relevant since those are the points which had been pressed before us. The first of those two grounds was that the suit land being non-agricultural land, an application under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was not maintainable. The second ground pleaded was that the pre-emptee himself being a co-sharer by previous purchase, a sale to him cannot be the subject matter of pre-emption by other co-sharers. ( 4 ) SO far as the first ground so pleaded is concerned, the record of rights show that R. S. Plot No. 2019 appertains to a rayati holding though the character of land is recorded as homestead with two structures. According to Mr. Mukherji since after the date of vesting, the original purpose of the settlement would no longer be the decisive factor-whether the land in question would be agricultural or non-agricultural would depend upon the nature of the use of it. Hence it is contended by Mr. Mukherji, that since on the date of vesting the land was being used for non-agricultural purpose, it cannot be agricultural land. But unfortunately for Mr. Mukherji whatever be the merit of such a contention, it is no longer open to the pre-emptee to agitate the same after an earlier decision of this Court between the parties arising out of this pre-emption proceeding. ( 5 ) IN this pre-emption proceeding at an earlier stage, the pre-emptors filed an application for local inspection. That application was opposed by the pre-emptee and was dismissed by the learned Munsiff. ( 5 ) IN this pre-emption proceeding at an earlier stage, the pre-emptors filed an application for local inspection. That application was opposed by the pre-emptee and was dismissed by the learned Munsiff. Against that decision, the pre-emptor moved this court in revision in C. R. 892 of 1980. In upholding the order this court held, that the purchaser pre-emptee having caused a notice under section 5 of the Act to be served upon the pre-emptor co-sharer, is estopped from pleadings to the contrary that the land sold is not agricultural. This court relied on long settled principle on that point including the Full Bench decision in the case of (1) Chaitanya Charan v. Manik Chandra, AIR 1972 Cal. 520 . According to Mr. Mukherji there can be no estoppel by service of such a notice, because a co-sharer the pre-emptor was quite aware of the fact that the land in dispute is non-agricultural and that on the implementation of West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, it at least ceased to be agricultural. Mr. Mukherji also wanted to assail the fact of service of the notice under section 5. We are, however, of the view that as a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction we cannot entertain the points raised by Mr. Mukerji, because thereby Mr. Mukherji is really assailing the previous decision of this court. Reference may be made to the decision of the Privy Council in the case of (2) G. H. Hook v. Administrator General of Bengal 33 Callj 405. Hence we are in agreement with the Court of Appeal below that the ground is no longer open to the pre-emptee for challenge. ( 6 ) SO far as the second ground raised by Mr. Mukehrji is concerned, though that was raised in the trial Court, it was not raised the lower appellate Court. Trial court again held that having served a notice under section 5 (4) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act as a stranger purchaser, it is not open to him now to plead that he is not a stranger but a co-sharer. He relies upon an earlier purchase dated June 29, 1975, but that was by his son. According to him, the son was a mere demander and he has since obtained a declaratory decree to that effect. Mr. Roychowdhury appearing for the pre-emptor has strongly assailed the bonafides of that decree. According to Mr. He relies upon an earlier purchase dated June 29, 1975, but that was by his son. According to him, the son was a mere demander and he has since obtained a declaratory decree to that effect. Mr. Roychowdhury appearing for the pre-emptor has strongly assailed the bonafides of that decree. According to Mr. Roychowdhury such a decree had been collusively obtained without impleading the pre-emptor as a party defendant and that such a decree is not binding on his client. We find much substance in the objection raised by Mr. Roychowdhury. In any event the learned trial Judge in our view was right in his conclusion that pre-emptor having issued a notice to be served as a stranger purchaser under section 5 (4), he cannot now turn round and pleaded that earlier purchase by his son being a byname purchase he is not a stranger purchaser. Hence we find no merit in this contention either. As both the points raised by Mr. Mukherji, fail, the application fails and is dismissed. There will be no order for costs. Sanyal, J. : I agree.