JUDGMENT Tarun Chatterjee, J.: These are ten Revision Cases referred to this Special Bench by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court. The point which induced a Division Bench of this Court to refer to this Bench is whether a substantive right conferred upon a co-sharer in a portion or share of a holding of a raiyat to exercise the right of pre-emption had been taken away by deletion of the words 'and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue' from the definition of "holding" in section 2 of sub-section (6) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act after the words 'means the land held by a raiyat'. On this question a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Damayanti Maity vs. Aswini Kumar Jana, 1990(2) CLJ 378 , held that in view of deletion of the words 'and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue' an application by a co-sharer of such a holding was no longer maintainable in law. This question again cropped up before another Division Bench of this Court, which however, expressed its dissent and directed that the matters appearing before the said Division Bench on the aforesaid question, be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench to decide the question as posed hereinearlier. Accordingly, this Special Bench has been constituted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice for decision on the aforesaid question. 2. The question, therefore, needs to be decided in these reference cases is whether in view of the deletion of the word 'and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue' in the definition of "holding" in section 2(6) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (in short "the Act") by virtue of section 26(1)(a) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 an application for pre-emption filed at the instance of a pre-emptor on the ground that he is a co-sharer of a portion or a share of a holding which is transferred to any other person other than a co-sharer of a raiyat of the said holding was, maintainable in law or not under section 8 of the Act. 3. 3. In our view, the question that has been referred by the Hon'ble Chief Justice as noted hereinearlier, need not be gone into by us at all in view of the subsequent amendments made in section 2(6) and section 8 of the Act with effect from 7th August, 1969. For the purpose of coming to this conclusion, as noted hereinearlier, it is now necessary to consider the legislative history of the word "holding" as in section 2(6) of the Act and section 8 of the Act which conferred power on a co-sharer to apply for pre-emption if a share or a portion of a "holding" is transferred, to any person other than a co-sharer in the holding. Section 2(6) of this Act defined "holding". Originally "holding" under this Act was defined as the land or lands held by a raiyat and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue. Under section 8 of the Act, a co-sharer of a holding was conferred power to apply for pre-emption of the land when a portion of share of the holding of a raiyat was transferred to any other person other than a co-sharer in the holding. Originally section 8 of the Act read as under:- "If a portion or share of a holding of a raiyat is transferred to any person other than a co-sharer in the holding, any co-sharer raiyat of the holding may, within three months of the service of the notice given under sub-section (5) of section 5, or any raiyat possessing land adjoining such holding, may, within four months of the date of such transfer, apply to the Munsif having territorial jurisdiction for transfer of the said portion or share of the holding to him, subject to limit mentioned in section 14(M) on deposit of the consideration money together with a further sum of 10 per cent of that amount: Provided that if a co-sharer raiyat and a raiyat possessing land adjoining such holding both apply for such transfer, the former shall have the prior right to have a such portion or share of the holding transferred to him, and in such a case, the deposit made by the latter shall be refunded to him:" 4. Section 8, sub-section (1) has undergone several amendments. Originally the application for pre-emption had to be filed before the Revenue Officer specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf. Section 8, sub-section (1) has undergone several amendments. Originally the application for pre-emption had to be filed before the Revenue Officer specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf. But, by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1972 (West Bengal Act XII of 1972) the words 'Munsiff having territorial jurisdiction' have been substituted by the words 'Revenue Officer specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf. Therefore, with effect from the date when the said amendment Act came into force the application had to be filed before the Munsiff having territorial jurisdiction. Section 8, sub-section (1) has also undergone amendment in the year 1981 by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1981. For the first time the Bargadar in the holding has been given the right to apply for pre-emption under section 8(1) of the Act. However, before the amendment effected in the year 1981, the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act was enacted by the State Legislature in the year 1979. By the introduction of section 26(1) (a) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 which had come into force with effect from 14th April, 1981 in any District, the following amendments to the West Bengal Land Holding Reforms Act, 1955 (West Bengal Act X of 1956) shall be deemed to have been made - (a) in clause (6) of section 2, the words "and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue" be omitted, (b)..................., (c)......................., (d).............. Therefore, in view of the amendment of the definition of the word "holding" in section 2(6) of the Act in terms of section 26(1) (a) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979, the definition of "holding" in section 2(6) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act was read as meaning the land or lands held by a raiyat. The effect of this amendment is whether the land or lands held by a raiyat can still be treated as a unit for assessment of revenue and such land or lands shall constitute a holding. The effect of this amendment is whether the land or lands held by a raiyat can still be treated as a unit for assessment of revenue and such land or lands shall constitute a holding. However, the Constitutionality of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court and a Division Bench of this court in the case of PRS Sangha vs. State of West Bengal, 1986(2) Calcutta High Court Notes page 1, has declared section 2(c) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 to be ultra vires. In view of the Division Bench decision of this Court at this stage, there is no escape from conclusion that section 26(1)(a) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, cannot be held to be in force and therefore, even though the words "and treated as a unit for assessment of revenue" have been omitted by section 26(1)(a) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act 1979, the amendment made in the definition "holding" could not be given effect to and became inoperative so long as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court remains operative or till any decision is made by the Supreme Court in respect of the said decision as we are informed that a Special Leave Petition is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has been preferred against the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. However in view of the aforesaid amendment in the definition of "holding" in section 2(6) of the Act by virtue of section 26(1)(a) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 the definition of holding stood as follows: "Holding means the land or lands held by a raiyat". 5. At this stage, a controversy arose whether in view of such amended definition of "holding" in the Act, an application could be held to be maintainable in law under section 8 of the Act on the ground that the pre-emptor was entitled to an order of pre-emption as he was a co-sharer of such a holding, when a share or the portion of a holding of a raiyat was transferred to a stranger purchaser. A Division Bench of Court in the case of Damayanti Maity vs. Aswini Kumar Jana (supra) held that in view of such amendment in the definition of "holding" in section 2(6) of the Act, an application for pre-emption was not maintainable in law. In our view, in view of the significant changes brought about in the Act by the amendment of the definition of 'holding' by West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979, the expression if a portion or share of a holding of a raiyat is transferred to any person other than a co-sharer in the holding shall be nothing but an expression which has no meaning. Saying this the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Damayanti Maity (supra) held that it would be very difficult to apply the provisions of section 8 of the Act after the amendment made by the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 in the definition of "holding". In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.R.S. Sangha vs. State of West Bengal (supra) amendment in the definition of "holding" by the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 can be said to have remained effective, and therefore, there will be every scope for argument that the definition of "holding" as was there in the Act before the introduction of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 still shall remain effective. As noted hereinearlier, in Damayanti's case (supra) it was held that in view of the amendment in the definition of "holding" in section 2(6) of the Act, an application for pre-emption at the instance of a co-sharer of a holding was not maintainable in law. But in a subsequent order in another Division Bench of this Court, this view expressed in Damayanti's case (supra) was not accepted and for that reason the matter has now been referred before us. When this controversy was raised and kept pending in this Court, the legislature brought in certain amendments in the Act by introducing West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2000. Section 1, sub-section (2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'amendment Act') clearly says that this Act shall be deemed to have come into force on 7th August, 1969. Section 1, sub-section (2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 2000 (hereinafter referred to as 'amendment Act') clearly says that this Act shall be deemed to have come into force on 7th August, 1969. The section 2(6) of the Act, which defined "holding", has now been substituted in the following manner. "Section 2(6)-Co-sharer of a raiyat in a plot of land" means a person, other than the raiyat, who has an un-demarcated interest in the plot of land along with the raiyat" Correspondingly section 8 of the principal Act was also amended by the amendment Act. The amendment brought in sub-section (1) of section 8 of the Act is to the following effect:- '(1) for the words "holding of a raiyat", the words "plot of land of a raiyat" shall be substituted; (2) for the words "co-sharer in the holding", the words "co-sharer of a raiyat in the plot of land" shall be substituted; (3) for the words "bargadar in the holding", the words "bargadar in the plot of land" shall be substituted; (4) for the words "co-sharer raiyat of the holding", the words "co-sharer of a raiyat in the plot of land" shall be substituted; (5) for the words "adjoining such holding", the words "adjoining such plot of land" shall be substituted; (6) for the words "share of the holding", the words "share of the plot of land" shall be substituted; (7) in the first proviso,–– (a) for the words "bargadar in the holding", the words "bargadar in the plot of land," shall be substituted, (b) for the words "co-sharer raiyat", the words" co-sharer of a raiyat in a plot of land" shall be substituted, (c) for the words "adjoining such holding", the words "adjoining such plot of land" shall be substituted, and (d) for the words "share of the holding", the words "share of the plot of land" shall be substituted; (8) in the second proviso,–– (a) for the words "co-sharer raiyat", the words "co-sharer of a raiyat in a plot of land" shall be substituted, (b) for the words "adjoining such holding", the words "adjoining such plot of land" shall be substituted, and (c) for the words "share of the holding", the words "share of the plot of land" shall be substituted; (9) in the third proviso, for the words "adjoining such holding", the words "adjoining such plot of land" shall be substituted.' 6. We wanted to find out why the amendments indicated above were brought into the principal Act by introduction of the amendment Act with retrospective effect from 7th August, 1969. For this purpose we examined the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amendment Act. Amendment Act envisages:–– '(1) to redefine the term 'bargadar' in such a manner as to exclude certain near relatives of the owner of the land; (2) to change the definition of holding for removing certain unintended anomalies which have arisen from the existing expression: (emphasis added by us) (3) to specify the major modes of use of land so as to prevent conversion of agricultural land into purposes which are not strictly agricultural; (4) to clarify the term "Township" which has been used in section 14Y of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, but has not been properly defined; (5) to amend section 20B of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, to facilitate setting up of industry on any land on which there is bargadar (s); (6) to reintroduce Chapter (IV) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, by repealing the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act. 1979, the latter Act having been held ineffective for court orders; and (emphasis added by us) (7) to suggest amendment in section 50, section 51A and section 57 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, so as to permit use of computerized sheets of land records as original records and to facilitate the correction/revision of record-of-rights.' 7. From a plain reading of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amendment Act, it is clear to us that the amendment Act envisages to change the definition of holding for removing certain unintended anomalies which have arisen from the existing expression. The amendment Act also envisages to reintroduce chapter IV of the Act by repealing the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979, the latter Act having been held ineffective for Court orders. Therefore, the legislature intended to substitute the definition of "holding" by the word 'co-sharer of a raiyat in a plot of land'. The amendment Act also envisages to reintroduce chapter IV of the Act by repealing the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979, the latter Act having been held ineffective for Court orders. Therefore, the legislature intended to substitute the definition of "holding" by the word 'co-sharer of a raiyat in a plot of land'. It is also clear as noted herein earlier that in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.R.S. Sangha (supra) the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979, was found to be ineffective and therefore, chapter IV of the Act was reintroduced by repealing the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979. From the above discussion we are firmly of the view that the legislature by introducing the amendment Act of 2000 has now virtually done away with the concept of "holding" of a raiyat totally. As noted hereinearlier, the definition clause in section 2(6) corresponding amendment in section 8 of the Act has been brought about in the Act with retrospective effect from 7th August, 1969. By this amendment the right of pre-emption under section 8 of the Act would occur only when a portion or share of a plot of land of a raiyat is transferred to a person other than a co-sharer of a raiyat in the plot of land. Therefore, while dealing with an application under section 8 of the Act, there would be no necessity for the Court to apply the principle relating to a definition of "holding" as in section 2(6) of the Act before its amendment. Therefore, there is no need to decide the question referred to us in view of the amendment made in section 2(6) and section 8 of the Act as the concept of "holding" by such amendment has already been done away with by the legislature. Accordingly we do not propose to pronounce upon merits or otherwise of the question raised before this special Bench as noted hereinbefore. Accordingly the reference cases are disposed of. The Revisional Applications are now to be placed before the appropriate bench for consideration on merits. 8. There will be no order as to costs. 9. Let urgent xerox certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the learned Counsel for the parties. M.H.S. Ansari, J.; Asit Kumar Bisi, J.: We agree. Revisional applications disposed of with direction.