JUDGMENT : Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J. 1. Opposite party no.1 herein namely Santosh Das filed an application under section 8 and 9 of the of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955, seeking pre-emption of the land mentioned in “gha” Schedule to the plaint out of “kha” schedule. Pre-emptor’s case as made out in the application is that opposite party no. 2 herein Jagabandhu Malik became owner of 069 decimal demarcated land with specific boundary on the eastern side of the “ka” schedule by a compromise degree, passed in terms of solemenama, in the year 1957 in T.S. no. 122 of 1948. His further case is Jagabandhu (Opposite party no.2) since allotment, used to possess the said .069 decimal “kha” schedule land separately and exclusively. Thereafter he transferred .033 decimal of land mentioned in “ga” schedule to the application, to the pre-emptor/opposite party no.1 herein with a clear and distinct boundary by a registered sale deed on 24th July,1998. Since purchase pre-emptor/opposite party no.1 herein became adjoining land holder raiyat of case land and was/ is in possession of the said land by way of cultivation. Jagabandhu/opposite party no. 2, thereafter transferred 22 ½ decimal “gha” schedule land to the petitioner herein/pre-emptee by a registered deed dated 27th October, 1998 without notice to the opposite party no. 1/pre-emptor who is the adjoining land holder raiyat. The pre-emtor/opposite party No.1 submits that the pre-emptee/petitioner herein is a complete stranger to the case property and as the suit plot was transferred by Jagabandhu/opposite party no.2, in favour of petitioner herein, without notice, the opposite party no. 1 herein filed the said application seeking preemption. 2. The case of the pre-emptee petitioner as reflected from the written objection interalia is that opposite party no. 1 herein/pre-emptor has no prima facie case of adjoining land holder raiyat. His specific case is that he has purchased 22 ½ decimal land in the case property out of 1.44 acre land. Pre-emptor had already acquired 33 decimal within .069 decimal land and from the recital of petitioner’s deed it appears that on the same day Jagabandhu transferred 13 ½ decimal of land in favour of Basudev Dey and as such with the transfer of suit land opposite party no. 2 herein had transferred his entire share i.e. 069 decimal land and accordingly prayer for pre-emption is not maintainable. 3. Mr. 2 herein had transferred his entire share i.e. 069 decimal land and accordingly prayer for pre-emption is not maintainable. 3. Mr. Adhikary learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submits that from the recital of the deed of purchase of the petitioner, it appears that though the deed of Basudev was registered on same day, i.e. on 24.07.1998 but the time of execution /presentation of the said deed in favour of Basudev is not mentioned, either in the said deed or in the application for pre-emption filed by the opposite party no. 1. 4. He further argued that total area of land in plot no. 481 of Mouza Dharampur mentioned in “ka” schedule to the application is of 1.44 acres. From the pleading, it is clear that the land is not partitioned in between the co-sharers. Pre-emptor had sought for pre-emption against 22 ½ decimal of land, sold to petitioner herein, but the pre-emptor had not sought for preemption against the area of 27 decimal of land, sold by the other co-sharers to pre-emptee Niyati Mahato on the same day and as such the pre-emption application is barred by partial pre-emption. 5. He further submits that from the finding of the Trial court, it appears that nowhere it has been decided who purchased first from Jagabandhu i.e. either the pre-emptor Santosh Das or Basudev Das. No evidence has been produced by the pre-emptor to prove the aforesaid fact before the Trial court. Accordingly where no pre-emption is prayed for against the first transfer, in favour of Basudev, right to apply for pre-emption in connection with second transfer in favour of pre-emptee is barred. In this context he relied upon Ashima Dutta Vs. Chandra Nath Bhattacharya, reported in (2005) 2 CHN 139 . 6. He further submits that Jagabandhu got “kha” schedule mentioned .069 decimal land by virtue of solenama decree passed in T.S. 122 of 1948, but there is no whisper in the finding of the courts below that the said area of .069 decimal of land in plot no. 481 has been demarcated by way of execution of decree through appointment of survey commissioner in compliance with order XX, Rule 18 of Code of Civil Procedure and as such Jagabandhu cannot be considered as exclusive possessor of .069 decimal of land out of 1.44 acres of land in plot no. 481 has been demarcated by way of execution of decree through appointment of survey commissioner in compliance with order XX, Rule 18 of Code of Civil Procedure and as such Jagabandhu cannot be considered as exclusive possessor of .069 decimal of land out of 1.44 acres of land in plot no. 481, in absence of partition under section 14 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, either by way of decree of a civil court or by registered deed of partition through appointment of surveyor, mentioning specific boundaries and as such pre-emptor’s application for pre-emption on the ground of vicinage is not sustainable. The Trial court has misguided himself by not considering this aspect that without partition against the co-sharers, a co-sharer cannot apply for preemption on the ground of vicinage. When there is no partition it cannot be held that the co-sharer are holding the land adjoining the case land transferred and therefore he is not entitled to pre-empt. Learned Appellate court unfortunately concurred with the view of the Trial court observing that pre-emption application is entertainable even where the entire share or entire portion of a plot of land is transferred by a raiyat to any person other than co-sharer raiyat and thereby dismissed the appeal. 7. The learned counsel on behalf of the he petitioner in this context relied upon the following judgments. (i) Amal Kumar Giri Vs. Nani Gopal Paria, reported in (2004) 2 CLJ 161. (ii) Khagendra Nath Panda Vs. Gaya Prasad Sahu reported in 1987(1) CHN 88 . (iii) Kedar Nath Vs. Nagendra, reported in 1980 (1) CLJ 195. (iv) Rekha Rani Maity Vs. Jagat Pati Sashmal, reported in 1995 WBLR (Cal) 263. (v) Ashima Datta & another Vs. Chandranath Bhattacharya reported in (2005) 2 CHN 139 . (vi) Satish Chandra Kulia Vs. Kali Pada Maity, reported in 1977 CLJ (2) 480. (vii) Subal Mondal Vs. Gopal Chandra Mondal reported in 2014 (1) CHN 706 . 8. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party submits that Jagabandhu /original opposite party no. 2 herein became owner of .069 decimal of demarcated “kha” schedule on the eastern side, out of total 1.44 acre land mentioned in “ka” schedule by dint of aforesaid compromise decree which is marked as exhibit 3. Since demarcated area of 069 decimal of land was given to Opposite Party no. 2 out of 1.44 acre, Opposite Party no. 2 herein became owner of .069 decimal of demarcated “kha” schedule on the eastern side, out of total 1.44 acre land mentioned in “ka” schedule by dint of aforesaid compromise decree which is marked as exhibit 3. Since demarcated area of 069 decimal of land was given to Opposite Party no. 2 out of 1.44 acre, Opposite Party no. 2 does not remain co-sharer with other owners of said 1.44 acre land. 9. He further submits that from the recital of the pre-emptor’s registered sale deed, it is clear that out of said .069 decimal land, 13 ½ decimal was first transferred to Basudev before the purchase by pre-emptor. Moreover pre-emptee cannot take such plea before this court, when there is no such pleading in her written objection filed in J. Misc. Case no. 1 of 1999. He further submits that the pre-emptee has not pleaded any case of partial preemption in her written objection. 10. He further submits since both the courts below have arrived at the finding regarding adjoining land on the basis of compromise decree, sale deed of the pre-emptor and pre-emptee marked exhibit 3,5 8 respectively and also arrived at the finding in favour of the pre-emptors, such concurrent findings based on scrutinizing documents and evidence, does not call for interference by this court, invoking jurisdiction under article 227 of the constitution of India, in the absence of any perverse finding. Accordingly he has prayed for dismissal of the Application. 11. During course of argument learned counsel appearing on behalf of the pre-emptee /petitioner attacked the concurrent finding of the courts below interalia on the following grounds:- (a) The pre-emptor herein is not an adjoining land holder raiyat of the suit land in terms of solemnama decree passed in the year 1957 since no partition of total land measuring 1.44 acre was effected amongst the co-sharers as required under section 14 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955. Therefore, in absence of proper evidence of demarcation of land measuring .069 decimal out of 1.44 acres in absence of Mouza map and or site plan, prepared by the surveyor, pre-emptor cannot be held to be exclusive owner with adjoining land holder upon the same plot, against other co-sharer and as such his claim for pre-emption on the ground of vicinage cannot succeed. (b) Since admittedly entire share of .069 decimal land of the opposite party no. (b) Since admittedly entire share of .069 decimal land of the opposite party no. 2 Jagabandhu Mallick had been transferred the application under section 8 and 9 of the Act of 1955 is not maintainable. (c) The petitioner/pre-emptee purchased 22 ½ land from opposite party no.2 Jagabandhu Mallik and thereafter purchased 27 decimal land on the same day from other co-sharers of the same plot of land. However, pre-emptor/opposite party no. 1 herein filed application for pre-emption in respect of 22 ½ decimal land only and not for said 27 decimal land and as such the prayer for preemption is bad for partial pre-emption. (d) As 013 ½ decimal land was transferred to Basudev Das and 033 decimal of land was transferred to pre-emptor on the same day, Learned Trial court ought to have framed an issue to ascertain which sale deed was registered earlier. There is no finding in that respect in the impugned judgment. This issue is important because the pre-emptor has not sought for pre-emption upon first transfer against Basudev but claiming pre-emption against second transferor which is barred. Decision 12. As regards the question as to whether the pre-emptor has adjacent land to claim right of pre-emption on the ground of vicinage, it appears that Jagabandhu Malik/opposite party no. 2 herein became owner of 069 decimal of land mentioned in “kha” schedule on the eastern side out of total 1.44 acre land by dint of compromise decree passed in terms of solenama in 1957 filed in T.S. No. 122 of 1948 and said solenama decree is marked as exhibit 3. Since said solenama decree had attained its finality, so it cannot be said that said opposite party no. 2/ Jagabandhu remained co-sharer with other owners of said 1.44 acre of land. Though petitioner has contended that such partition has not been effected in terms of section 14 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1955, but it appears that the solenama decree was passed in 1957, whereas section 14 of the Act of 1955 came in force with effect from 7th August, 1969. Accordingly decree of compromise and the allotment of land in favour of co-sharers is not required to be tested in the light of section 14 of the Act of 1955. Accordingly decree of compromise and the allotment of land in favour of co-sharers is not required to be tested in the light of section 14 of the Act of 1955. Furthermore it appears that the preemtor became raiyat and has been possessing land adjoining to the land of the petitioner by prior purchase of .033 decimal out of 69 decimal by the deed dated July 24th, 1998 from his vendor Jagabandhu Mallick. Jagabandhu thereafter sold 22 ½ decimal of land out of 69 decimal land to pre-emptee/ petitioner herein by registered deed dated 27th October, 1998 and there is nothing to show that before making such sale, any notice was given to pre-emptor herein, though it appears from the deed of pre-emptee/petitioner that the said land of pre-emptor situates at southern boundary line of pre-emptees/petitioners’ aforesaid purchased suit land of 22 ½ decimal. In the absence of any contrary document or evidence, I find nothing to contradict with the observation of the courts below that the opposite party no.1 is the adjacent land holder of the property in question. 13. As regards transfer of entire share of 69 decimal of land of Jagabandhu Mallick, it appears that .033 decimal of land in “ga” schedule was transferred to pre-emptor by registered deed dated 24.07.1998 out of his 069 decimal “kha” schedule land and he sold 13 ½ decimal of land to Basudev Das prior to transfer or sale of said 033 decimal of land to pre-emptor/opposite party no.1 which is apparent from the recital of the sale deed of pre-emptor. Moreover it has also been strenuously argued by the pre-emptor opposite party that petitioner herein neither pleaded nor taken this ground before the courts below and as such he cannot take this plea in the present application filed under article 227 of the Constitution to make out a fresh case. Jagabandhu transferred .013 decimal land to Basudev and thereafter 33 decimal land to pre-emptor and thereafter 22 ½ decimal land to pre-emeptee out of total 069 decimal of land and thereby though he has transferred his entire share of land, the application under section 8 and 9 of the Act of 1955 is maintainable in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. In this context reliance has been placed upon two judgments passed by co-ordinate bench of this court reported in 2015 SCC Online Cal 1041 and 2015 (3) CHN (Cal) 689. Petitioner herein has failed to distinguish said proposition of law. 14. As regards partial pre-emption raised by the petitioner herein it is submitted on behalf of the opposite party that petitioner had never taken such plea in the court below. Furthermore the land measuring 033 decimal is situated on the southern side of suit land of the petitioner/pre-emptee which appears from the pre-emptee’s sale deed but there is nothing to show that pre-emptor’s said 033 decimal land is situated on any side of the said purchased land of pre-emptee, measuring 27 decimals which pre-emptee purchased from other owners of the said plot by registered sale deed on the self-same day. Accordingly the plea of the petitioner that the pre-emption application is barred by partial pre-emption as petitioner has not sought for pre-emption in respect of said .027 decimal of land purchased by preemptee on the same day, does not find any substance. 15. Whether the opposite party no.1/pre-emptee is an adjacent owner of suit land and whether he is entitled to pre-empt property in question has been concurrently found by the two courts below against the pre-emptee by appreciating documentary and oral evidence. After examining the reasons given by the courts below, I have hardly any scope to say that the conclusions are perverse or even the findings are against the weight of evidence on record. I find nothing in the judgment which can be said to be grossly erroneous or unjust or shocking the courts conscience, that it is necessary in the interest of justice for the High Court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. In Boorugu Mahadev and sons & another Vs. Sirigiri Narasing Rao and others, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 343 , Supreme Court observed that reversal of findings of fact by courts below in revision on reconsideration of question of fact and re-appreciation of entire evidence, in absence of any jurisdictional error by it, amount to commission of jurisdictional error of revisional court itself. Since I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error to interfere with the observation of the courts below, the present application is liable to be dismissed. 17. Since I do not find any perversity or jurisdictional error to interfere with the observation of the courts below, the present application is liable to be dismissed. 17. In such view of the matter C.O. 378 of 2018 is dismissed without any cost. 18. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.