ORDER: These two revision cases, raising a common question of law, have been beard together for the sake of convenience This order will, therefore, govern both The cases arise thus. 2. The raiyti holding recorded in Khatian no 610 of Mouza Muluk, comprising two plots namely plot Nos. 192 and 398 stood in the name of one Kalipada Bhandary who died in the year 1973. leaving two sons Kshirode and Ranjit who Inherited the holding in equal shares. 3. On 25.2.81, Ranjit sold the half of his moiety share in plot no 398 which is a tank to Gangsadhar Sou and Anil Sou, the petitioners in C. R. No. 2185 of 1985. On 27.5.81 Kshirode, brother of Ranjit, filed an application under s. 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act (‘Act' for short) alternatively under s. 24 of the West Bengal Non Agricultural Tenancy Act, before the learned Munsif. 1st Court Bolpur, claiming preemption of the demised share on the ground that he is a co sharer of Ranjit and the transferees are stranger purchasers. This application was registered as Misc Case no. 32 of 1981. 4. On the same day, Ranjit sold his remaining .hare of the tank to Kalipada Sou and Smt Kalidasi Sou, the petitioner in C. R No. 2188 of 1985 and on 6.6.81 a similar application for pre emption was filed by Kshirode in the same court on identical grounds. This application was registered as Misc Case no 38 of 1981. 5. It may be noted that according to the concurrent finding of the courts below notices of the transfers under s. 5(4) of the Act wore not given to Kshirode and, that being so, the applications for pre-emption were within time. 6. A variety of defences were raised by the purchasers which were ever ruled by the trial court as well u the lower appellate court and are not necessary for our purpose The main defence which concerns us was that the disputed property, being a tank, does not fall within the definition of 'holding' as appearing in s. 2(6) of the Act, read with the definition of 'land' appearing in s. 2(7) of the Act. It was contended, therefore, that s. 8 of the Act bas no application to such transfers. 7. It was contended, therefore, that s. 8 of the Act bas no application to such transfers. 7. The learned Munsif held in both the cases that s. 8 of the Act cannot be invoked for pre-emption the shares of the tank so transferred but allowed preemption under s. 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act Being aggrieved, the purchasers took two appeals to the learned District Judge, Birbhum. The appeal arising out of Misc. case no 32 of 1981 was registered and numbered as Misc. Appeal no 39 of 1984, while the other arising out of Misc. Case no 38 of 1981 was registered and numbered as Misc. Appeal no 40 of 1984. 8. The appeals were heard by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Birhhum, who dismissed both the appeal and affirmed the decisions if the learned Munsif subject to the modification that the preemptions were allowed under s. 8 of the Act instead of under s. 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. 9. The purchasers then moved this court in revision and obtained these two Rules, C. R. No 2185 of 1985 being directed against the judgment and order passed in Misc Appeal no. 39 of 1984 and C. R. No. 2188 of 1985 being directed against the judgment and order passed in Misc Appeal No. 40 of 1984. 10. There is no dispute between the parties that in both the cues the shares of a tank were transferred. The only point urged before me by Mr. Bhattacharjee appearing In support of the Rules is that the lower appellate court went wrong in holding that s. 8 of the Act applies to the case of transfer of a share of tank. 11. In elaborating his point Mr. Bhattacharjee, first of all refers to s. 8 of the Act and contends that the section comes Into play only where a portion or a share of the holding of a raiyat is transferred to any person other than a co sharer in the holding. 12. Mr. Bhattacharjee next invites my attention to the definition of holding' 'land' and 'raiyat' appearing in s. 2(6), 2(7) and 2(10) of the Act. In s 2(6), 'holding' has been defined as land or lands held by a raiyat and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue. 12. Mr. Bhattacharjee next invites my attention to the definition of holding' 'land' and 'raiyat' appearing in s. 2(6), 2(7) and 2(10) of the Act. In s 2(6), 'holding' has been defined as land or lands held by a raiyat and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue. As defined in s. 2(7) of the Act, land means agricultural land (other than land) comprised in a tea garden which is retained under sub-s. (3) of 3 or the West Bengal Estate. Acquisition Act 1953 and Includes homestead but does not Include tank. 13 Mr. Bhattacharjee's contention is that since 'holding' mens land or held by a raiyat and 'tank' has been excluded from the definition of land, a tenancy ceases to be a 'holding' within the meaning or s. 2(6) or the Act if it comprises tank or tanks or, In other words, both agricultural and non-agricultural lands Secondly, since raiyat means a person or Institution holding land for purpose of agriculture and tank is not agricultural land a holding comprising both land and tank cannot be said to be the holding of a raiyat. 14. In opposing the Rules, Mr. Das has placed a strong reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this court in Bankim Behari Maity v. Ganesh Chandra Dhal & ors. reported In 1983 (1) CHN 156 . In the case under reference the holding in question was a composite holding comprising six plots of which, four were agricultural lands and the remaining two were tanks. A portion or one plot which was agricultural land was transferred by a co-sharer to a stranger purchaser. The application for pre-emption under s. 8 of the Act as allowed by the trial court but the decision was reversed in appeal by the learned District Judge, who held the view that the tenancy In question comprising both agricultural lands and tanks that is, agricultural and non agricultural lands, was not holding as defined in s. 2(6), read with s. 2(7) of the Act and. that being the position, the petitioner who applied for preemption as well as the transfers were not raiyat as defined in s. 2(10) of the Act. 15. that being the position, the petitioner who applied for preemption as well as the transfers were not raiyat as defined in s. 2(10) of the Act. 15. In reversing the appellate order of the learned District Judge, their Lordships held that holding of a raiyat does not cease to be a holding for the purpose or s. 8 of the Act even If a part of it is non-agricultural land and this position would continue till the holding is divided by the Revenue Officer to constitute separate holdings for agricultural land and non-agricultural land under s. 51(4) or the Act and the existing revenue or rent, a the case may he is apportioned. 16. Mr. Bhattachrjee, however, strenuously contends that the above decision clearly distinguishable on facts and can have no application to the cases before us because in the case under reference the tank formed an insignificant part area wise of the holding and the subject matter of transfer was agricultural land and not tank as in the Cases before us. 17. It is not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Bhattacharjee. As pointed out already, s. 8 of the Act will be attached whenever a portion or share' or a holding of a raiyat is transferred to any person other than a person who is a co-sharer of the holding. If therefore, the tenancy of a raiyat comprising both agricultural and non-agricultural land does not cease to be the holding of a raiyat within the meaning of the Act, it becomes immaterial whether agricultural or non-agricultural land comprising the holding has been transferred because, in either case, a portion or share of the holding has been transferred. It is true that in the case under reference the tanks formed an insignificant part of the holding, while in the case before us the tank and the land are almost of the same area but then, the decision referred to above does not appear to rest on this aspect alone. 18. It is true that in the case under reference the tanks formed an insignificant part of the holding, while in the case before us the tank and the land are almost of the same area but then, the decision referred to above does not appear to rest on this aspect alone. 18. The key note of the decision is that a 'holding' as defined in s. 2(6) of the Act is a unit for assessment of revenue notwithstanding that it comprises both agricultural and non-agricultural lands and the position continued to be the same till the holding is divided by the Revenue officer to constitute separate holdings for agricultural and non-agricultural lands under s. 51(4) of the Act and the existing revenue or rent, as the case may be, is apportioned. 19. There is no material before me to indicate division of a holding by the Revenue officer or apportionment of rent or revenue under s. 51(4) of the Act. 20. For the above reasons, I am of the opinion that the learned Additional District Judge, rightly allowed the claims of the opposition parties for pre emption under s. 8 of the Act and see no ground for interference with the impugned orders. In the result, both the Rules are discharged. There will be no order as to costs. Let the records be sent down immediately. Rules discharged.