JUDGMENT : Harish Tandon, J. An unsuccessful plea is further raised before this Court by the petitioner that opening of the separate khatian tantamounts to a separation of plot of land and denotes an exclusive right of a person whose name is recorded therein which is opposed to the concept of cosharership. 2. One Siddeswari Dasi became the owner of R.S. Plot No. 187 comprising 2.27 acres of land and Plot No. 240 measuring 1.68 acres under Mouza Jitmahanpur by deed of purchase from the erstwhile owner. 3. The said Siddeswari Debi upon her death left behind her surviving two daughters, namely, Bhulia Bewa and Sandhya Bewa and a son, namely, Kameswar Karmakar, who inherited undivided ?rd share in each of such plots being the subject matter of the dispute in the preemption proceedings. 4. Undisputedly, the said Kameswar Karmakar had four sons, namely, Atul Chandra Karmakar, Binay Karmakar, Shib Charan Karmakar and Dinesh Karkamar, the opposite party herein. The aforesaid two daughters subsequently divested their respective shares in the aforesaid plots in favour of the said four sons of Kameswar Karmakar. In the year 1987, the said Kameswar Karmakar transferred 19 decimal of land in Plot No. 187 and 14 decimal of land in Plot No. 240 in favour of the opposite party herein by executing and registering the deed bearing No. 11291 dated. 9.11.1987. 5. One of the sons of Kameswar Karmakar, i.e., Shib Charan Karmakar sold, transferred and conveyed 38 decimals of land in Plot No. 187 and 28 decimals of land in Plot No. 240 to the petitioners herein on the strength of registered deed No. 295 dated 27.1.2004 and the registration was complete on 30.9.2004. The opposite party filed an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred as the 'Act') as a co-sharer, within the period of limitation provided therein ascertaining the right of pre-emption. The petitioners assert that the partition was effected amongst the co-sharers before April 14, 1981 which can be corroborated by the fact that a separate khatian was opened for their vendor, namely, Shib Charan Karmakar and, therefore, he cannot be treated as a co-sharer in respect of the subject land. 6. Both the Courts below negated the stand of the petitioners that the opening of a separate khatian has an effect of a partition of a plot of land. 7. Mr. 6. Both the Courts below negated the stand of the petitioners that the opening of a separate khatian has an effect of a partition of a plot of land. 7. Mr. Asis Kumar Bagchi, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that Section 51(5) of the said Act makes it imperative to open a separate khatian for each raiyat which has an implied effect of partition of a plot of land. He audaciously submits that though Section 14 of the said Act do not include the same to have the effect of partition but by legal fiction it achieves such resultant effect and, therefore, an application for pre-emption is not maintainable at the instance of the co-sharer. He relied upon a judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Damayanti Maity v. Aswini Kumar Jana and Others reported in 1990 (2) CLJ 378 and submits that the definition of a holding under Section 2 (g) of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979, means total of every description of land held by a raiyat and the said Act having a overriding effect on the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and, therefore, the total land held by a raiyat is taken as unit of assessment for revenue and, therefore, there cannot be any question of co-sharership in the same holding. 8. He further relies upon a judgment of the Full Bench in case of Madan M. Ghosh & Ors v. S.B. Atta & Ors reported in 76 CWN by submitting that when a raiyat owns a separate holding or tenancy, it negates the concept of co-sharership. Lastly he submits that both the Courts below have wrongly held that the opposite party is a co-sharer of a raiyat and an application for pre-emption is maintainable. 9. Mr. Pinaki Dhole, learned advocate for the opposite party submits that the vendor of the petitioner acquired the share in a plot of land by inheritance and is thus the co-sharer in respect of a plot of land. He further submits that Section 14 does not recognise any other form of partition than mentioned therein and mere opening of the separate khatian for the purpose of collection of the revenue cannot be treated as a partition of a plot of land. He further submits that Section 14 does not recognise any other form of partition than mentioned therein and mere opening of the separate khatian for the purpose of collection of the revenue cannot be treated as a partition of a plot of land. He strenuously submits that both the Courts below have concurrently found that the opposite party being the cosharer is entitled to maintain an application for pre-emption under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and, therefore, this Court should not interfere with such findings in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. The facts enumerated herein above are more or less undisputed. The entire argument of the petitioners rests upon the legal point that opening of a separate khatian, in fact, partakes the character of the partition. Undisputedly, Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 bestowed right on the co-sharer to apply for purchase of a land transferred by the co-sharer or contiguous tenant. 11. The basic question emerges in this case is whether the opening of the separate khatian ipso facto partitioned the plot of land in spite of having not incorporated under Section 14 of the said Act. 12. At the time of promulgation of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, Section 8 did not confer the right of the bargadar to apply for purchase of the land which was recognised by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment), Act, 1981. 13. Originally Section 2 (6) defines 'holding' to mean that land or lands held by a raiyat and treated as a unit of assessment of revenue. By promulgation of the West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, which came in effect on and from April 14, 1981 the word 'treated as a unit of assessment of revenue' was omitted from Section 26 (1) (a) of the said Act. 14. There ware a spate of litigations before this court for interpreting of the definition of holding after West Bengal Land Holding Revenue Act, 1979 came into effect and there appears to be a divergent opinion on the above aspect. (See : Devendra Nath Karak v. Rekha Pal; reported in (1866) 1 CLJ 227, PRS Sangha v. State of West Bengal; reported in 1986 (2) CHN 1, Damayanti Maity v. Aswini Kumar Jana & Ors; reported in 1990 (2) CLJ 378 ). 15. (See : Devendra Nath Karak v. Rekha Pal; reported in (1866) 1 CLJ 227, PRS Sangha v. State of West Bengal; reported in 1986 (2) CHN 1, Damayanti Maity v. Aswini Kumar Jana & Ors; reported in 1990 (2) CLJ 378 ). 15. Subsequently, the definition of 'holding' was omitted from Section 2(6) of the said Act by the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2000, and replaced by the definition' co-sharer of a raiyat in a plot of land'. Accordingly, Section 8 was also amended and the right of pre-emption was provided if the portion or a share of a plot of land of raiyat is transferred to any other person than a co-sharer of a raiyat in a plot of land. Therefore, once the concept of holding has been done away and replaced by the co-sharer of a plot of land, the judgment relied upon by Mr. Bagchi rendered in case of Smt. Damayanti Maity v. Aswini Kumar Jana and Others (Supra), does not have a relevance in the present context. The definition of the word 'land' means the land of every description and includes tank, tank fishery, fishery, homestead or land use for the purpose of live stock, breeding, poultry farming, dairy or land comprised in tea garden, factory, work shop, orchard, a bazaar, forest, tolls or land having any other sairati interested and any other land together with all interested and benefits arising out of a land and thinks attached to the earth and permanently fastened to anything attached to earth. 16. Chapter 7 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act contains the provisions relating to maintenance of the record of records by the prescribed authority. Section 51(5) provides a separate khatian for each raiyat to include all lands held by him in one mouza be revised or prepared by the revenue officer in accordance with the provision of the said Chapter. Rule 22 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965 requires the record of right be revised or prepared in respect of a district or part of a district in the manner laid down in Schedule A to the said Rules. Rule 23 thereof relates to the particulars to be recorded for revision or preparation of the record of rights by the revenue officer. 17. Rule 23 thereof relates to the particulars to be recorded for revision or preparation of the record of rights by the revenue officer. 17. The opening of the khatian is nothing but the statement of rights of each person and, therefore, have nothing to do with the separation or partition of the plot of land. Section 14 of the said Act expressly provides the incidence of partition and have consciously did not include the separate khatian as an incident of partition. 18. It would be relevant to quote Section 14, which runs thus : "14. Partition of plot of land among co-sharers of a raiyat in plot of land. - (1) Partition of a (plot of land) among (co-sharers of a raiyat owning it) shall be made either by – (a) a registered instrument; or (b) a decree or order of a Court. (2) When partition is effected by an instrument, the registering officer shall not accept for registration any such instrument unless there is tendered along with it a notice, giving the particulars of the (plot of land) and the area of each sharer, and such process fee as my be prescribed, for transmission to the prescribed authority. (3) If as a result of partition one or more shares comprised an area less than the standard area- (a) The prescribed authority in a case where partition is effected by a registered instrument, or (b) The court passing the decree or order for partition, shall result the shares, excluding the homesteads of the co-sharers, so that no share is less than the standard area, and sell such shares, or when the (plot of land) comprises an area which cannot be partitioned into two or more shares, each comprising not less than the standard area, sell the entire (plot of land) to the highest bidder or bidders among the cosharers, or failing them to other persons, and the sale proceeds shall, after deducting the expenses for conducting the sale, be paid to the co-sharers in accordance with their shares in the (plot of land) partitioned, excluding the homesteads. (4) If the (plot of land) or any share or shares thereof cannot be sold as aforesaid, the prescribed authority or the court shall report the case to the State Government and the State Government shall, by order made in this behalf, take over such (plot of land) or share or shares and shall place at the disposal of the prescribed authority or the court, as the case may be, the market value thereof for payment to the co-sharers in the manner indicated in sub-section(3). (5) For the purpose of preventing fragmentation of (plot of land) as a result of partition to the State Government may by order made in this behalf specify an area, which in its opinion is the minimum unit for effect (utilization) in the interest of (...) production (or in the public interest) as the standard area, and different standard areas may be specified for different localities or for different classes of land. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any agreement or any custom or usage or any decree, judgment or award of any court, no partition amongst (co-sharers of a raiyat in a plot of land) and coparceners of a Hindu undivided family governed or claiming to be governed by the mitakshara School of Hindu Law shall have any force unless such partition is made by registered instrument or by a decree or order of a court and is effected by metes and bounds; and both the conditions having been fulfilled any such partition shall be deemed to have come into force from the date of registration of the deed of partition or the deed of the final decree or order of a Court, as the case may be, or from the date of effecting partition by metes and bounds, whichever is later." 19. It is, therefore, clear that a partition of a plot of land among the co-sharer of a raiyat shall only be made either by a registered instrument or a decree or order of the Court. The said Section is a part of Chapter II which includes the right of a co-sharer to apply for preemption. Admittedly, the vendor of the petitioners acquired the property by inheritance and a separate khatian does not ipso facto leads to partition or the separation of a plot of land. 20. The said Section is a part of Chapter II which includes the right of a co-sharer to apply for preemption. Admittedly, the vendor of the petitioners acquired the property by inheritance and a separate khatian does not ipso facto leads to partition or the separation of a plot of land. 20. The Court should upheld the legislation by interpreting the different provisions harmoniously and avoid any interpretation which would ever frustrate the legislative intent or makes the provision unworkable. 21. The introduction of the definition of a co-sharer of a plot of land after replacing the original definition given to the word 'holding', a partition is recognised only when it is strictly in conformity with Section 14 thereof. 22. This Court, therefore, does not find that the plea raised by Mr. Bagchi is of any substance. Furthermore, the High Court, exercising the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to keep the subordinate Court within the precincts of law. The concurrent findings of facts based on sound reasons and in conformity with the statute should not be interfered with. The petitioner could not make out any case which warrants the interference with the impugned order. 23. The revisional application, therefore, fails. No costs. Application is dismissed.