Absence Of Notice Cannot Extend Limitation U/S 8 WB Land Reforms Act For Contiguous Raiyat’s Pre-emption Claim: Supreme Court
Adjoining raiyats cannot invoke date of knowledge over limitation from transfer date; and pre-emption rights must be strictly exercised under the statute.
The Supreme Court has held that absence of notice of transfer cannot extend limitation for a contiguous raiyat seeking pre-emption under Section 8 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, holding that such claims must be brought within four months from the date of transfer and not from the date of knowledge. The Court held that where the statute expressly prescribes the commencement of limitation, courts cannot read into it an alternative trigger based on lack of notice.
The Court clarified that the notice framework under the Act distinguishes co-sharers from other classes of pre-emptors, and adjoining raiyats cannot claim parity with co-sharers to seek a notice-based extension of limitation. Reiterating that pre-emption is a weak statutory right operating as a restraint on alienation, the Court held such right must be strictly exercised within the limits fixed by the legislature and cannot be enlarged through judicial interpretation.
Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi while dismissing an appeal against a judgment of the Calcutta High Court which had held the pre-emption claim barred by limitation, observed, “…the right of pre-emption gets triggered only when transfer is not to a co-sharer. Understandably, a co-sharer stands on a different footing as he has a direct interest in the subject matter of transfer…the right of pre-emption is neither a fundamental right nor a constitutional right, rather it is a weak right which, in the case on hand, has been conferred by a statute and, therefore, must strictly be exercised in terms thereof. Thus, in our view, reading down sub-section (1) of section 8 is not required either to save it from being declared unconstitutional or to make it clear. More so, when it is neither vague nor ambiguous”.
Advocate Rahul Kushwaha appeared for the appellant and Manju Jetley, AOR appeared for the respondent.
The appellant had asserted a right of pre-emption as a raiyat possessing land contiguous to the transferred property, but moved the application after nearly seventeen months from the transfer. It was argued that since no notice of transfer had been served, limitation ought to run from the date of knowledge rather than the date of transfer.
The trial court rejected the application as ex facie barred by limitation, although the appellate court had revived the claim observing that limitation ought not to defeat the plea at the threshold where absence of notice was alleged, the High Court in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India restored the trial court’s order.
The Court, now, examined Sections 5 and 8 of the 1955 Act and held that the legislature consciously prescribed distinct limitation triggers for different classes of pre-emptors. While co-sharers may invoke a notice-linked period, an adjoining raiyat falls in a separate category for whom limitation runs from the date of transfer.
The Bench held that importing a notice or knowledge requirement into Section 8 would amount to impermissibly recasting an unambiguous statutory provision. It further held that absence of service of notice on a contiguous raiyat did not suspend or extend limitation.
“In our view, Section 8 is clear and categoric. The Section not only confers the right of pre-emption on three different categories of persons but also provides for separate periods of limitation within which each category could exercise its right… Therefore, the legislature specifically provided for service of notice on him. The other two categories of pre-emptors cannot equate themselves with a co-sharer. In such view of the matter, if the legislature, in its wisdom, did not require service of notice on them as in the case of a co-sharer, there is no discrimination”, the Bench noted.
“Having regard to the discussion above, we are of the considered view that there is no substance in the argument that since no notice of transfer was served on the appellant, the period of limitation to file the application under Section 8 of the 1955 Act would commence from the date of knowledge of the transfer”, the Bench further noted.
Therefore, the Court, holding the application hopelessly time-barred, dismissed the appeal and affirmed that the pre-emption claim had been rightly rejected. Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Cause Title: Sib Nath Chatterjee v. Tulsidas Chatterjee & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 409)
Appearances:
Appellant: Rahul Kushwaha, Suraj Kumar, Ashutosh Singh, Sohit Bhardwaj, Subhasish Bhowmick, AOR, Advocates.
Respondents: Manju Jetley, AOR, Ajit Kumar Ekka, AOR, Rajesh Sen, Shibani Bhattacharjee, Shashikant Yadav, Manohar Pratap, Advocates.