JUDGMENT Soumen Sen, J. 1. This revisional application is arising out of an order dated 5th May, 2012 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Kandi in connection with an application filed under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 since registered as Misc. Case No. 28 of 2012. The petitioner filed the said application under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 praying, inter alia, for pre-emption in respect of the Ka schedule property measuring about 1/2 decimal of land in R.S. Plot No. 3811 which was sold to the opposite party under a deed of sale vide No. 1881/12. 2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the opposite party in collusion with the vendor inflated the value of the said property to Rs. 4 lakhs whereas actually the said property was sold at a consideration of Rs. 1 lakh. Moreover, the value assessment deed would show that the value of such property would be Rs. 1,26,465/-. 3. Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, the learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. Partha Pratim Roy, the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that the consideration money as mentioned in the deed of transfer is not required to be deposited when a dispute is raised with regard to the actual consideration money paid for the share in the property or for the property as the case may be and only upon an enquiry being made under section 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, the pre-emptor may be required to deposit any further sum that may be ascertained upon such enquiry being made by the Munsif. 4. Ms. Pooja Das Chowdhury, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party, however, submits that unless consideration money mentioned in the said deed together with a further sum of 10 per cent of that amount is deposited along with an application filed under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, the said application cannot be taken on record and in any event cannot be decided on merits. 5. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the event the pre-emptor is required to deposit the consideration amount mentioned in the impugned deed of conveyance and ultimately it was found that such amount was not actually paid or may not be the actual consideration money, in absence of any provision for refund, the petitioner would not be in a position to recover such amount. Moreover, the right of pre-emption is a statutory right and keeping in view the purpose and object of the said legislation, the pre-emptor should be permitted to deposit the consideration money based on his own estimation of the share in the property as the case may be and in the event ultimately it is found that there is any short deposit, a pre-emptor may deposit the balance consideration after an enquiry is made under section 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. It is submitted that very often, the transferor with a view to transfer the right of purchase by co-sharer or contiguous tenant abnormally inflate the value of such share in the property so that the co-sharer or the contiguous tenant, as the case may be, is unable to exercise such right of pre-emption under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. In the event, the said section is interpreted to mean that the pre-emptor would be required to deposit the consideration amount as mentioned in the said transfer deed together with a further sum of 10 per cent of that amount, such right of preemption would be rendered illusory. In any event, in absence of any provision for refund of any excess amount that may be found after an enquiry is made compelling the pre-emptor to deposit such amount would cause undue hardship and would militate against the very purpose of the said legislation. 6. The learned Counsel for both the parties have referred to sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 relevant portions whereof are reproduced hereinbelow:-- 8. 6. The learned Counsel for both the parties have referred to sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 relevant portions whereof are reproduced hereinbelow:-- 8. Right of purchase by co-sharer or contiguous tenant.--(1) If a portion or share of a plot of land of a raiyat is transferred to any person other than a co-sharer of a raiyat in the plot of land, the bargadar in the plot of land may, within three months of the date of such transfer, or any co-sharer of a raiyat in the plot of land 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 plot of land, 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 plot of land to him, subject to the limit mentioned in (section 14M.) on deposit of the consideration money together with a further sum of ten per cent of that amount. 9. Munsif to allow the application and apportion lands in certain cases.-- (1) On the deposit mentioned in sub-section (1) of section 8 being made, the Munsif shall give notice of the application to the transferee, and shall also cause a notice to be affixed on the land for the information of persons interested. On such notice being served, the transferee or any person interested may appear within the time specified in the notice and prove the consideration money paid for the transfer and other sums, if any, properly paid by him in respect of the lands including any sum paid for annulling encumbrances created prior to the date of transfer, and rent or revenue, ceases or taxes for any period. The Munsif may after such enquiry as he considers necessary direct the applicant to deposit such further sum, if any, within the time specified by him and on such sum being deposited, he shall make an order that the amount of the consideration money together with such other sums as are proved to have been paid by the transferee or the person interested plus ten percent of the consideration money be paid to the transferee or the person interested out of the money in deposit, the remainder, if any, being refunded to the applicant. The Munsif shall then make a further order that the portion or share of the plot of land be transferred to the applicant and on such order being made, the portion or share of the plot of land shall vest in the applicant. 7. Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that on a plain reading of section 8 of the said Act, it would appear that the consideration amount referred to section 8 would be the consideration amount which the pre-emptor would have paid for such transfer. The pre-emptor to show his bona fide is not only required to deposit such consideration amount but along with such amount, he is required to deposit further sum of 10 per cent of such consideration amount and on an objection being raised by the transferee and/or the person interested as contemplated under section 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 an enquiry can be made. A final order of pre-emption is passed after holding an enquiry in the manner as indicated therein. In support of the aforesaid contention, Mr. Chatterjee had relied upon the decisions reported in:-- i) 98 CWN 758 (Para-3) (Sahid Ali vs. Sh. Abul Kasem); ii) 1986(1) CLJ 170 (Para-8) (Sadhan Chandra Samanta vs. Jaladhibala Vast & Anr.); iii) 85 CWN 782 (Para-5) (Bimal Sadhan Koley vs. Nikhilesh Koley); iv) An unreported judgment in C.O. 1289 of 2008 with C.O. 1291 of 2008 (Kaustubh Mondal vs. Barasat Eye Hospital represented by Shri Debabrata Das & Ors.) dated 18th June, 2008; v) An unreported judgment in C.O. 2226 of 2011 (Devdas Haider vs. Sankar Biswas & Anr.) dated 28th August, 2012. 8. In Sahid Ali vs. Abdul Kashem (98 CWN 758) the Hon'ble Division Bench considered 85 CWN 782 (supra) and Jyotish Chandra Sardar vs. Hiralal Sardar reported in ILR 1971 (1) Cal 213, the relevant portion of Paragraph 3 on which reliance was placed is reproduced hereinbelow:-- 3. Two decisions, referred to and relied only Mr. Roy Chowdhury, are those delivered in the cases of Jyotish Chandra Sardar vs. Hiralal Sard, reported in ILR 1971(1) Cal 213 and the other in the case of Sadhan Chandra Samanta vs. Jaladhi Bala Dasi & another, reported in 1986(1) CLJ 170 , which, in effect, followed the ration laid down by the earlier Division Bench. Roy Chowdhury, are those delivered in the cases of Jyotish Chandra Sardar vs. Hiralal Sard, reported in ILR 1971(1) Cal 213 and the other in the case of Sadhan Chandra Samanta vs. Jaladhi Bala Dasi & another, reported in 1986(1) CLJ 170 , which, in effect, followed the ration laid down by the earlier Division Bench. The said two decisions, inter alia, propound that sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, read together, do not require a simultaneous deposit of the consideration money with the application for pre-emption. Mr. Roy, on the other hand, place reliance upon the Single Judge decision of this Court, reported in the case of Bimal vs. Nikhilesh, reported in 85 CWN 782. In view of the aforesaid two Division Bench Judgments, we do not find any reason to accept Mr. Roy's contention. We say so also upon a reading the language of the two sections viz., sections 8 and 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, as interpreted by Mr. Roy Chowdhury by way of substantiation of merits of his case. Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act provides for deposit of consideration money without specifying as in the cases of similar provisions in section 26F of the Bengal Tenancy Act and section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, for deposits simultaneously with the application, nor does the said section provide for any penal consequence, ensuing from non deposit in the said manner by rejection of the application-Section 9. however, makes provision for the proof of actual amount of consideration paid by the transferee for the transfer in their favour along with other sums and also or an enquiry into the truth and correctness of such assertion by the learned Munsif. culminating with a direction by him for deposit of further sum, if any, within the time specified therefor by him. There is no provision for repayment or refund of excess consideration, as may be found after enquiry by the learned Munsif, but only provision for deposit of such further sum-Requirement of proof would arise in case of pre-emptor's disputing the consideration amount Requirements under the said section can be harmoniously reconciled, if, the view, which we have expressed hereinabove, following the two Division Bench judgments, is accepted Mr. Roy's submission is that since section 9 refers to the word 'transferee' and not 'pre-emptor' and places the onus of providing the actual amount of consideration on him, there is no scope for the Court to exempt the pre-emptor from depositing the entire amount of consideration as per transfer deed simultaneously with the application for preemption, which cannot fit in with the language of the statute, but for acceptance of such a submission, the Court may have to import the power of directing refund or repayment in the language of section 9 itself. Secondly, by implication, since one particular mode of action for the Court has been prescribed, the other forms of action or types of action on the part of the Court can be presumed to have been excluded. The user of the word transferee' does not militate against the aforesaid construction, as further deposit cannot be determined, without determination of the actual amount of consideration and other amounts statutorily recoverable by the transferee, thus requiring the representation by the transferee in course of the enquiry by the Court concerned. For the said reasons also, the views expressed by the Division Benches are unexceptionable and the views expressed by the learned Single Judge in 85 CWN 782 do not continue to be good law any further. 9. The said judgment was considered and followed by two learned Single Judges in the two unreported judgments mentioned above. 10. In Kaustubh Mondal (supra), the learned Single Judge noticed the judgment of the Division Bench in Sahid Ali (supra) in which the Hon'ble Division Bench observed that sections 8 and 9, if read together do not require a simultaneous deposit of the consideration money with the application of preemption and this is more so as unlike section 26F of the Bengal Tenancy Act and section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, there is no penal consequence in the form of rejection of the application for pre-emption for non-deposit of entire consideration money. The learned Single Judge in consideration of the earlier decisions observed;- It was held that the requirement of proof would arise in case of pre-emptor disputing consideration amount and requirements under the said section can be harmoniously reconciled if the earlier two Division Bench judgments is accepted. The learned Single Judge in consideration of the earlier decisions observed;- It was held that the requirement of proof would arise in case of pre-emptor disputing consideration amount and requirements under the said section can be harmoniously reconciled if the earlier two Division Bench judgments is accepted. Sahid All was referred to in Angurbala Maity's case (supra) and there also the pre-emptor did not deposit the entire consideration money passed for the impugned deed and Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court relying on Sahid Ali (supra) held that non-deposit of entire consideration money mentioned in the disputed deed along with the application for pre-emption is not fatal. In both Sahid Ali and Angurbala Maity (supra) the decision of an Hon'ble Single Judge in Bimal Sadhan Koley vs. Nikhilesh Koney, 85 CWN 782 was held not to be the good law. We have Dijapada Haider vs. Prafulla Chandra Haider, AIR 1972 Cal 409 . Here the pre-emptor disputed the actual price paid for the transfer. Though he deposited the amount shown in the deed he disputed the price of the alleged structure as according to him there was no structure at all and consequently there was no question of deposit of the value of the structure being shown in the kobala. The Hon'ble Judge held that the Revenue Officer or the Appellate Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to reject the petitioner's application under section 8(1) of the Act simply because the applicant made a short deposit of the consideration money and where the consideration money is disputed it would be sufficient compliance of section 8(1) of the Act, if the applicant deposits the balance of consideration money when the Revenue Officer or the Munsif makes a final order either granting or refusing pre-emption after the amount of consideration money payable by the pre-emptor has been adjudicated under section 9(1) of the Act. Therefore, as the transferee can raise a dispute as to the actual amount of the consideration paid by the transferee the pre-emptor is not legally barred to dispute the correctness of the amount shown in the deed and in either of the cases Revenue Officer or the Munsif has to determine the actual amount of the consideration paid. Significantly in Angurbala (supra) simply short deposit was made without raising the dispute. Still then His Lordship held that non-deposit of the entire amount was not fatal. Significantly in Angurbala (supra) simply short deposit was made without raising the dispute. Still then His Lordship held that non-deposit of the entire amount was not fatal. In view of the three Division Bench decisions referred to above it has to be held that non-deposit of the entire consideration money cannot be lead to rejection of the application without trial and enquiry as envisaged in section 9(1) of the Act. Whether the dispute raised by the pre-emptor will meet with the success or not is a different matter. 11. The learned Single Judge in C.O. 2226 of 2011 while considering the scope of the said Act made the following observations:-- Section 9(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act provides that on the deposition mentioning in sub-section (1) of section 8 being made, the Court shall also give notice of the application to the transferee, and shall cause a notice to affix on the land for the information of persons interested. On such notice being served, the transferee or any person interested may appear within the time specified in the notice and prove the consideration money paid for the transfer and other sums, if any, properly paid by him in respect of the lands including any sum paid for annulling encumbrances created prior to the date of transfer, rent or revenue, ceases or taxes for any period. The Court below may after such enquiry as he considers necessary direct the applicant to deposit such further sum, if any, within the time specified by him and on such sum being deposited, he shall make an order that the amount of the consideration money together with such other sums are proved to have been paid by the transferee or the person interested plus ten per cent of the consideration money be paid to the transferee from the person interested out of the money in deposit, the remainder, if any, being refunded to the applicant. The Court below shall then made a further order that the portion or share of the plot of land be transferred to the applicant and on such or being made, the portion or the share of the plot of land shall vest in the applicant. The Court below shall then made a further order that the portion or share of the plot of land be transferred to the applicant and on such or being made, the portion or the share of the plot of land shall vest in the applicant. The provision of law is to the effect that in case of any dispute with regard to any consideration amount, matter shall be enquired into and determine by the Court below as it thinks fit and proper in accordance with law. 12. In view of the aforesaid decisions such application filed under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 cannot be rejected on the ground of any short deposit. The learned Civil Judge, in fact, did not dismiss the said application on the ground of short deposit but required the petitioner to pay the balance amount. This direction of the learned Civil Judge has resulted in the present revisional application. 13. The learned Court below has proceeded on the basis of a duly executed deed of conveyance which has assessed the value of the said property as Rs. 4 lakhs. Whether actual consideration amount has been paid or not and it includes any other sum paid by the purchaser for annulling encumbrances created prior to the date of transfer, rent or revenue, cess or taxes if any would be the subject-matter of enquiry under section 9 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. In my view, in case such dispute is raised with regard to the actual consideration, the appellant may be permitted to file an application with a short deposit but cannot claim a decision on the said application filed under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 on merits without first satisfying the Court about the justiciability of making such a short deposit. 14. The learned Judge while rejecting such plea of the pre-emptor relied upon section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908 and section 79 of the Indian Evidence Act. 15. The learned Court below held that the concerned Sub-Registrar certified that the market value of the concerned has been properly assessed at Rs. 4 lakhs and the petitioner had failed to produce any cogent document and reliable evidence from which it can be presumed that the consideration money mentioned in the deed in question is not the actual consideration. 16. The learned Court below held that the concerned Sub-Registrar certified that the market value of the concerned has been properly assessed at Rs. 4 lakhs and the petitioner had failed to produce any cogent document and reliable evidence from which it can be presumed that the consideration money mentioned in the deed in question is not the actual consideration. 16. Prima facie, in absence of any evidence of reliable character being produced by the petitioner to disprove the consideration amount mentioned in the impugned transfer deed, the learned Civil Judge appears to have taken a correct view. However, considering the fact that reliance has been placed by the petitioner on a value assessment report, the learned Civil Judge is directed to consider this aspect of the matter with regard to the proof of actual consideration paid along with any other sums as contemplated under section 9 after giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidence and dispose of the matter within a period of 5 months from the date of the communication of this order without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties. The parties willing to adduce further evidence must disclose such evidence within two weeks from date failing which the learned Single Judge shall proceed with the matter on the basis of the existing materials. This order is passed in view of the fact that the learned Court below has formed only a prima facie view with regard to the consideration amount paid by the transferor and also to give an opportunity to the petitioner to rely on the said value assessment report. However, it is made clear that the admissibility, relevancy and cogency of such value assessment report shall be decided by the learned Civil Judge being uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. 17. Till such issue is decided, the application filed under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 shall remain stayed. 18. This revisional application, thus, stands allowed with the aforesaid observation. Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertaking. Application allowed