The intent, object and purpose shall be considered in interpreting provisions under an act : High Court Of Calcutta
While considering and slash or interpreting this type of provision under an act one has to keep in mind the intent, Object and purpose for which the legislation was made. If it is found that an interpretation, if accepted, goes against the intent object and purpose of the legislation in that event that interpretation is not at all acceptable. The interpretation with subserves the purpose an object of the act is to be accepted, is upheld by the high court of Calcutta, by the learned bench of District Judge Jangpura, Murshidabad, in the case of Nasruddin Sk V. Mahasin Ali Khan, C.O. 3919 of 2019.
Petitioners filed a Misc. Case No. 52 of 1990 against the opposite parties in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court Jangipur under Section 8 of the West Bengal land Reforms Act praying for pre-emption. Petitioners purchased .18 acre of land of plot no. 136 of Mouza-Ratanpur on 10th May, 1979. The opposite parties purchased .0625 acre of land of plot no. 133 of Mouza- Ratanpur by a registered deed dated 6th January, 1986 which was registered on 3rd April, 1990. Petitioners are the adjoining land holders of plot no. 133. Petitioners are being two brothers claimed pre-emption on the ground of vicinity by depositing the consideration amount along with 10% of the amount as per the requirement under the relevant section.
Opposite parties contested the Misc. Case No. 52 of 1990 by filing a written objection contending that the opposite parties got no interest in plot no. 136 as the vendors of the deed dated 10th May, 1979 and had no title in the said plot. Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, 2nd Court allowed the misc. case under section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act after consideration of all evidence on record.
The learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble High Court while considering the provisions under Section 8, 9(3) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 held, if none of the applicants have common boundary with the land transferred, although they are “raiyat possessing lands adjoining such holding” the Court may apportion the portion or share of the holding transferred in such manner or on such terms as it deems equitable as authorised by section 9(3) of the Act. It was further held that the opposite parties being raiyats possessing land adjoining the holding of the vendor of the petitioner were entitled to maintain the application for pre-emption notwithstanding the fact that their other co-sharers of holding had not joined
with them or that they could not be described as raiyats having common boundary with the land transferred.
The interpretation given by the learned Appeal Court is accepted that if one person comes and makes application then the application for pre-emption is maintainable and if more than one person being the joint owners come, then it is not maintainable. This interpretation would definitely be hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, this is not the intent of the legislature. Otherwise also it would be an unacceptable proposition and/or interpretation to give such a narrow meaning of the provision under Sections 8 & 9 of the W.B.L.R. Act. While considering and/or interpreting this type of provision under an Act, one has to keep in mind the intend, object and purpose for which the legislation was made. If it is found that an interpretation, if accepted, goes against the intent, object and purpose of the legislation, in that event, that interpretation is not at all acceptable. The interpretation which subserves the purpose and object of the Act is to be accepted.
PRIME LEGAL is a full service law firm that has won national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer
Judgement reviewed by – Rani Banerjee