JUDGMENT : BISWAJIT BASU, J. 1. None appears on behalf of the opposite party in spite of service to oppose this application. 2. The revision application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the pre-emptors in a proceeding under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 and is directed against the order dated May 6, 2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) 3rd Court, Burdwan in pre-emption Misc. Case No. 7 of 2005. 3. The learned Trial Judge by the order impugned has directed the preemptors to pay Court fees on the market value of the suit property in respect of which the pre-emptors are seeking pre-emption being a non-notified cosharers. The said market value is assessed at Rs.17,33,333/- being the value of the impugned deed. 4. The issue involved in the present revisional application is what should be the Court fees payable on an application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. Mr. Ray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Judge has erroneously interpreted the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gopal Sardar Vs. Karuna Sardar reported in, (2004) 1 Cal LJ 209 (SC) in holding that the application under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’ in short) is a suit for the purpose of payment of Court fees. He contends in the said decision the Hon’ble Apex Court held that a proceeding initiated under aforementioned provision of the said Act is to be construed as a suit for the purpose of Limitation Act, therefore, according to him direction of the learned Trial Judge to pay Court fees according to the market value of the suit property is based on erroneous interpretation of the said decision. 5. The issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 2004 (1) CLJ (SC) 209 (Supra) referred by the learned Trial Judge in the order impugned was whether the delay in filing an application under Section 8 of the said Act can be condoned by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. 5. The issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported in 2004 (1) CLJ (SC) 209 (Supra) referred by the learned Trial Judge in the order impugned was whether the delay in filing an application under Section 8 of the said Act can be condoned by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforementioned decision approved the view of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Serish Maji vs. Nishit Kumar Dolui reported in, (1999) 1 Cal HN 365 that a proceeding initiated by an application under Section 8 of the said Act is to be construed as a “suit” for the purpose of Limitation Act. The learned Trial Judge has also noted the said observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the order impugned but erroneously stretched the said observation to conclude that the application under Section 8 of the said Act is a “suit” even for the purpose of evaluating the said proceeding and payment of Court fees thereof. 6. The pre-emptor under Section 8 of the said Act can assert his right of pre-emption by filing an application. There are other statues under which pre-emption can be sought for by filing an application such as, pre-emption under the Partition Act, 1893, pre-emption under the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, pre-emption under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, pre-emption under the Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. 7. In the present case right of pre-emption since has been exercised by way of an application in terms of Section 8 of the said Act and the said application being an original petition, the Court fees payable on the said application shall be in terms of Article 2 of Schedule II to the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 i.e. for a Court of a Civil Judge (Junior Division) ten rupees. The said Article under said Schedule of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970 is reproduced below for ready reference:- SCHEDULE II Fixed Fees 2.Original petition not Otherwise provided For. When filed in- (a) A Court of Civil Judge Ten rupees (Junior Division), (b) The City Civil Court, Calcutta or a Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Or a District Court. Thirty rupees (C) The High Court. One hundred and twenty rupees. 8. When filed in- (a) A Court of Civil Judge Ten rupees (Junior Division), (b) The City Civil Court, Calcutta or a Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Or a District Court. Thirty rupees (C) The High Court. One hundred and twenty rupees. 8. On the other hand right of pre-emption under Mohammedan Law or right of pre-emption accruing under an agreement in favour of a party to the said agreement can only be asserted by filing a suit. In such cases the payment of Court fees is payable on the market value of the property sought to be pre-empted, in terms of Section 7(VII) of the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970. 9. The issue involved in the present revisional application can be resolved from another angle. Any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Munsif under Section 9(1) of the said Act, on an application under Section 8 of the said Act may prefer an appeal under Section 9(6) of the said Act to the District Judge. 10. The appellant of such an appeal in terms of Rule 8(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965 is required to pay fixed Court fees on the memorandum of the said appeal as provided in sub-clause (ii) of Clause (a) of Article 11 of Schedule II to the Court Fees Act, 1870, which is corresponding to Article 13 of Schedule II to the West Bengal Court Fees Act, 1970. The said Rule 8(2) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Rules, 1965 is quoted below for ready reference:- “8. Procedure for appeals and fees to be paid under sub-section (6) of Section 9- (1).......................... (2) The Court-fees payable on the memorandum of appeal shall be such as are provided in sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of Article 11 of Schedule II to the Court-fees Act, 1870 and shall be collected in the same manner as laid down in that Act. (3)............................... (4)...............................” 10. It is, therefore, preposterous to suggest that the Court fees payable on the application under Section 8 of the said Act is in accordance with the market value of the suit property when fixed Court fees is payable on the memorandum of an appeal arising out of the said application. 11. In view of the discussion made above the order impugned is set aside. C.O. 2190 of 2005 is allowed. The Misc. 11. In view of the discussion made above the order impugned is set aside. C.O. 2190 of 2005 is allowed. The Misc. Case is pending since 2005 the learned Trial Judge requested to expedite the hearing of the Misc. Case No. 7 of 2005 without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.