JUDGMENT Mst. Samidanessa Bibi, the original opposite party in the present Rule, filed an application under section 8 read with section 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 for pre-emption against Sk. Abdul Aziz, the original petitioner in the present Rule, on or about November 6, 1969, in respect of 2 decimals of land being 12 annas interest in Dag Nos. 883, 885 and 892 all appertaining to Khatian No. 527 which the said petitioner had purchased on January 5, 1956, alleging to be a co-sharer in respect of the raiyati srithiban land under the said khatian in Mouza Hallyan within the District of Howrah. The case as made out by the pre-emptor, inter alia, was that the said lands originally belonged to Didar Box and his two minor daughters named Hasia and Marzina, the shares of the said Didar Box being 4 annas and that of the daughters being 12 annas. On December 18, 1945 Didar Box for himself and on behalf of the said minor daughters sold the lands to the pre-emptor and the said lands were recorded in the name of the pre-emptor original opposite party in the revisional settlement record-of-rights, that after Hasia and Marzina attained majority they sold their 12 annas interest in the said lands to the original petitioner on 5th January, 1956 and as no notice of the disputed sale was given to the original pre-emptor, the pre-emption application was not barred by limitation and the original opposite party being a co-sharer in respect of the suit lands was entitled to get an order of pre-emption in her favour. 2. The original petitioner also instituted Title Suit No. 238 of 1956 in the Court of the learned Munsif at Howrah for partition which was dismissed but the same was, however, decreed by the lower appellate court in Title Appeal No. 380 of 1958 which was affirmed by this Hon'ble Court even in second appeal being S. A. No. 108 of 1959. 3. The original petitioner contested the said application for pre-emption by filing written objection challenging, inter alia, the maintainability of the pre-emption proceeding. The officer concerned, however, by his order dated November 30, 1970 allowed the said pre-emption application, inter alia, upon a finding that the application was not barred by limitation and he had jurisdiction to entertain the said application. The appeal being Misc. The officer concerned, however, by his order dated November 30, 1970 allowed the said pre-emption application, inter alia, upon a finding that the application was not barred by limitation and he had jurisdiction to entertain the said application. The appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 218 of 1972 preferred by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Howrah by his order dated November 21, 1973. Against the said appellate order the original petitioner has moved this Hon'ble Court in revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with• section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and obtained the present Civil Rule. 4. It may be noted here that during the pendency of the present Civil Rule both the original petitioner and the original opposite party died and their heirs and legal representatives were duly substituted in their place and stead in the present Civil Rule. 5. Mr. Bakshi, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended before me that it would clearly appear from the certified copy of the kobala dated January 5, 1956 which was sought to be pre-empted, and also from the C. S. record-of-rights that the lands in dispute were subject-matter of "korfa" tenancy and as such the application for pre-emption under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act filed by the original opposite party on November 6, 1969 was not maintainable in law, inasmuch as, a 'korfa' tenant with an occupancy right had no right of pre-emption under section 26(F) of the Bengal Tenancy Act which was in force at the relevant time and in support of his said contention referred to the decisions reported in 45 CWN 790 and 65 CWN 354. Mr. Bakshi further contended that the pre-emption application was barred by limitation and in the present case the old Limitation Act of 1908 would apply and section 5 of the said Act had no manner of application. Mr. Mr. Bakshi further contended that the pre-emption application was barred by limitation and in the present case the old Limitation Act of 1908 would apply and section 5 of the said Act had no manner of application. Mr. Bakshi's last contention was that since the pre-emption application was filed after the date of vesting, even assuming that the pre-emptor had any right of pre-emption on January 5, 1956, the situation had changed with the coming into force of Chapter VI of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 and referred to the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 76 CWN 1058 and also contended that since the pre-emptor's alleged right of pre-emption did not continue till the date of the order, she was not entitled to get any order in her favour and referred to the decisions reported in AIR 1971 SC 369 , AIR 1975 SC 1869 and 82 CWN 950 corresponding to 1978 (2) Cal LJ 155. 6. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned Advocate appealing on behalf of the opposite parties however, submitted that the application for pre-emption filed by the petitioner was quite maintainable in law and the orders passed thereon were also legal and valid. 7. Undoubtedly, the pre-emption application was filed on the ground of co-sharership and that too after the date of vesting in respect of a jama in which the pre-emptor was alleged to be a co-sharer by virtue of her purchase in the year 1945. It is, however, quite clear that the scope of co-sharership which existed before the date of vesting under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 was thoroughly changed after vesting of such estates under the said Act and in the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of (1) Madan Mohan Ghosh & Ors v. Sishubala Atta & Ors. reported in 76 CWN 1058, it has been clearly held inter alia, that after the enforcement of Chapter VI of the said Act and the vesting of interests of raiyats and under raiyats on and from April 14, 1956 corresponding to Baisak 1, 1363 B. S., the co-sharers of a raiyati or under-raiyati holding ceased to be co-sharers and raiyats and under-raiyats of such holding became direct tenants under the State in respect of the lands of that holding which each such raiyat or under-raiyat was entitled to retain under sub-section (1) of section 6 thereof. Further it is also the settled principle of law that a pre-emptor in order to succeed on his application for pre-emption, must have the right to pre-empt not only at the time of the disputed sale but also at the time of institution of the pre-emption proceeding and also at the time of passing the decree or order in such proceeding. In other words, his tenency must remain intact as a co-tenant till the date of decree or order i. e. he must continue to possess the right to pre-empt till the date of the final order passed in the pre-emption proceeding. It is thus firmly established under the general law of pre-emption that the decisive date as regards the right of pre-emption of a raiyat or under raiyat is the date of the decree or final order. If the pre-emptor losses that right before the passing of the final order, no order for pre-emption can be passed in his favour even if he might have had such right on the date of the initiation of the pre-emption proceeding. Reference may be made on this point to the decisions reported in the cases of (2) Bhagwan Das (Dead) by his legal Representatives and Ors. v. Chetram reported in AIR 1971 SC 369 ; Rikhiram and Anr. v. Ramkumar & Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 1869 and (4) Kalipada Ghosh v. Dulal Chandra Ghosh, 82 CWN 950. Reference may be made on this point to the decisions reported in the cases of (2) Bhagwan Das (Dead) by his legal Representatives and Ors. v. Chetram reported in AIR 1971 SC 369 ; Rikhiram and Anr. v. Ramkumar & Ors., reported in AIR 1975 SC 1869 and (4) Kalipada Ghosh v. Dulal Chandra Ghosh, 82 CWN 950. Undoubtedly, from the facts and circumstances of the present case it clearly appears that after the coming into force of Chapter VI of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 the co-sharers of the holding whether it was a raiyati or occupancy and/or under-raiyati, ceased to be co-sharers of that holding by operation of law as per the Full Bench decision of this Court in Madan Mohan Ghosh & Ors. case (Supra) and hence the pre-emptor in the present case could not get an order in her favour on the ground of co-sharership on the date when the order was made admittedly after the coming into force of the said Chapter VI the pre-emption proceeding should fail on that ground alone. 8. Secondly, as the disputed sale took place on the 5th day of January, 1956 i. e. at a time when the Bengal Tenancy Act was in force, the pre-emptor, if at all entitled under the law, should have filed her application under section 26(F) of the said Act in respect of the said sale and that too within the statutory period but could not file any application under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 on the ground of co-sharership in the year 1969 under any circumstances. Hence, the present application filed by the pre-emptor under the said section 8 is not at all maintainable on the ground also. 9. Regarding the submissions made by Mr. Bakshi as to the maintainability of a pre-emption proceeding in respect or the lands forming part of a "korfa" tenancy, no doubt in the Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of (5) Santosh Kumar Duary & Anr. 9. Regarding the submissions made by Mr. Bakshi as to the maintainability of a pre-emption proceeding in respect or the lands forming part of a "korfa" tenancy, no doubt in the Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of (5) Santosh Kumar Duary & Anr. v. Upendra Nath Pramanik, reported in 45 CWN 790 it was held by Handerson, J. that a co-sharer of an under-raiyati holding with occupancy right had no right of pre-emption as against his co-sharer transferor of such holding under section 26(F) (as amended) read with section 48(G) of the Bengal Tenancy Act but in a latter Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of (6) Panchu Sundari Das & Anr. v. Haripada Biswas, reported in 65 CWN 354 P. N. Mookerjee, J. discussing the effect the amendment of section 116 of the Bengal Tenancy Act effected by the Bengal Tenancy Amendment Act of 1955 (West Bengal Act 19 of 1955), however, had held that an under-raiyati holding would remain as such under Chapter V of the Bengal Tenancy Act and the holders of such holding were occupancy raiyats and also were co-sharer tenants of the said holding and as such were entitled to pre-empt under section 26(F) of the Bengal Tenancy Act if, however, the bar under the said amended section 116 could be removed. The concept of co-sharership amongst the raiyats and under-raiyats of a pre-existing raiyati or under-raiyati holding, however, has undergone a complete change in law in view of the subsequence introduction of Chapter VI of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 on and from April 10, 1956 the effect of which has already been discussed hereinbefore with reference to the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Madan Mohan Ghosh & Ors. v. Sishubala Atta & Ors. (Supra). After the introduction of the said Chapter VI, therefore co-sharers of a pre-existing raiyati or under-raiyati holding ceased to be co-sharers of such holding notionally. 10. Lastly, the application for pre-emption filed by the original pre-emptor on November 6, 1969 under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 in respect of a sale made on January 5, 1956 not having been made within three years from the completion of the disputed sale is also barred by limitation even applying the provisions of Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 11. Regarding Mr. 11. Regarding Mr. Bakshi’s a submission that in the present case the old Limitation Act, of 1908 would apply and section 5 of the said Act would not be made applicable, I am not making any observation on that point as that question is not relevant to be decided in the facts and circumstances of the present case since the pre-emption application filed in the present case is one under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 filed long after coming into force of the Limitation Act, 1963 and not under section 26(F) of the Bengal Tenancy Act filed at a time when the Limitation Act of 1908 was in force. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the position in law as it stands now, it can safely be held that both the tribunals below have over-stepped their jurisdiction in entertaining the pre-emptor's application for pre-emption and passing orders in her favour. The orders under challenge are therefore set aside and the Rule is accordingly made absolute without any order as to costs. Let this order and the records be sent down to the trial court forthwith.