Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1160 (CAL)

Saraj Kanti Ghorui v. Shashadhar Ghata

2011-08-24

PRASENJIT MANDAL

body2011
Judgment :- Prasenjit Mandal, J. This application is at the instance of the opposite party and is directed against the Order dated August 30, 2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amta, District Howrah in L.R. Misc. Case No.23 of 2003 thereby accepting the report submitted by the learned Commissioner. The short fact involved in the misc. case is that the opposite party herein instituted a misc. case under Sections 8(1) and 9 of the W.B.L.R. Act for pre-emption. The petitioner herein is contesting the said misc. case by filing a written objection contending, inter alia, that the valuation had not been properly recorded in the concerned deed. Accordingly, a Commissioner was appointed and he held an investigation relating to valuation of the property. Thereafter, he submitted a report which was accepted by the learned Trial Judge. Being aggrieved by that order, this revisional application has been preferred. Now, the question is whether the impugned order should be sustained. Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the learned Trial Judge has rightly accepted the valuation as submitted by the learned Commissioner. In assessing the valuation of the land in case, the Commissioner was appointed and he held enquiry accordingly. He considered the two documents filed by the pre-emptor at the time of investigation and out of which the deed no. Exhibit 1 was executed on May 27, 2003 and the plot in this deed is contiguous to the plot in case, that is, plot no.3474. It may be noted herein that the deed in question was registered on March 30, 2003, that is, almost just two months prior to the registration of the deed marked exhibit no.1. The learned Commissioner has opined that the plot in question and the plot referred in the deed marked exhibit 1 have the equal advantage. So far as the Northern adjacent side a brick laid pathway is there and at the same time, both the plots have the same disadvantage in respect of the high-tension electric lines passed above the two plots. In consideration of such situation and in consideration of other factors, the Commissioner submitted the report accepting the valuation of the deed as referred to in Exhibit 1. In consideration of such situation and in consideration of other factors, the Commissioner submitted the report accepting the valuation of the deed as referred to in Exhibit 1. It may be appointed that the pre-emptor filed another deed marked Exhibit 2 but the said deed was registered on February 15, 2002, that is, one year back and as such the said deed was not considered by the learned Commissioner. On the other hand, the petitioner herein produced two deeds which were executed on July 20, 2005, that is, more than two years later from the date of execution of the deed in question. The Commissioner did not consider such two deeds and I think he has rightly rejected the valuations as tendered by the petitioner by those two deeds. Both the parties to the pre-emption case were allowed to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions and accordingly both the parties adduced evidence before the learned Commissioner. The reasons given by the learned Commissioner in support of the valuation, I think, are just, reasonable and probable. Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the opposite party has referred to the decision of Sri Balai Chandra Kundu & anr. v. Radharani De & ors. reported in AIR 1986 Calcutta 396 and thus, he submits that when a Commissioner is appointed to ascertain whether a portion of the plaintiff’s plot was wrongly included in the defendant’s plot in record of rights, the Trial Court in exercise of its discretion in accepting the Commissioner’s report and rejecting the defendant’s objection, the Hon’ble High Court will not interfere with the findings of the learned Commissioner in revision. In the instant case, the learned Commissioner justified the reasons in submitting the report and coming to the conclusion as to the valuation of the land in case. The reasons given by the learned Commissioner in support of the report are, in my view, justified and probable. Accordingly, I am of the view that there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. This revisional application is devoid of merits. It is, therefore, dismissed. Considering the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.