I think this is a case of Pre-emption under Section 8 of Land reforms act. There are so many opposite verdict about the matter by the apex court. But let me know, is your property in municipal area or corporation area.
If your property is municipal or corporation area then there is no possibilities to get decree of the case. But if your property is under panchayet area then there is 50% possibilities to get decree. But in my opinion your defense should be crisis of land
. If the owner of the adjacent plot file suit then you have to see in which ground he or she file the suit. In the case of Paschimbanga Bhumijibi Krishak Samity and others and subsequent decisions followed as referred by Mr. Roy it was held that ÔbastuÕ land or land having dwelling house should not come within the purview of pre-emption under Section 8 of the Act of 1955.
But admittedly, the suit property was a tank. In terms of West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment Act) of 1981 land means land of several descriptions and includes tank, tank fishery etc. as defined in Section 2 (7) of the Act of 1955 with effect from 7th of August, 1969. As such, tank or tank fishery after said amendment has been brought within the fold of land as defined in the Act of 1955. After said amendment of the definition of land in the Act of 1955 whenever any portion or share of a plot of land of a raiyat whether agriculture or otherwise is transferred to a stranger purchaser
, Section 8 may be attracted. Tank or tank fishery cannot be equated with ÔbastuÕ land. As such, those case laws have no application in the facts of this case.
Reference: In a case of pre-emption under Section 8 of the Act of 1955 a pre-emptor has to establish that a portion or a share of a plot of land of a raiyat was transferred to a stranger purchaser, that the petitioner pre-emptor was a bargadar, or a co-sharer or an adjacent land owner of the plot of land from which said transfer was made and that he filed said application within the prescribed time. The opposite party who is resisting said claim of pre-emption also knows what are the points in issue in an application for pre-emption under Section 8 of the Act of 1955. As such, the absence of those specific averments in the application did not prejudice the O. P. pre-emptee in taking his defence in the case. There was also no specific averment in the written objection of the pre-emptee that his vendor transferred his entire share in the suit tank. Under these circumstances, there was no bar to adduce evidence by the parties in support of their respective claims on the point in issue.