Pre-emption under tenancy law upheld where constitutional challenge failed, statutory purpose was broadly read, and compensation for improvements was denied.

Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act was treated as constitutionally settled by binding Supreme Court precedent, so the Article 19(1)(f) challenge failed. The Court also read Section 4 broadly, holding that the stated purpose could fall within the residuary expression "other purposes," defeating the objection to pre-emption on that ground. A fresh factual objection that bona fide requirement lacked a finding on means was not entertained because it had not been raised below. The limitation plea was rejected under binding precedent, and compensation for improvements was denied because the purchase remained subject to the pre-emptive right and the statute provided no such relief.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 was unconstitutional as violative of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the pre-emptive claim could be sustained on the footing that the required purpose fell within Section 4 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949; (iii) whether the claim of bona fide requirement failed for want of a clear finding on means; (iv) whether the application for pre-emption was barred by limitation; (v) whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation for improvements made in the land.

Issue (i): Whether Section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 was unconstitutional as violative of Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The challenge to the vires of Section 24 was treated as concluded by the earlier decision of the Supreme Court. The Court held that it could not disregard that binding merely because a different aspect of the same provision was sought to be urged.

Conclusion: The constitutional challenge failed and was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the pre-emptive claim could be sustained on the footing that the required purpose fell within Section 4 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949.

Analysis: The stated purpose was held to fall within the residuary expression "other purposes" in Section 4, either as analogous to the purposes specifically mentioned or as covered by its wider meaning. On that construction, the objection based on the nature of the purpose was untenable.

Conclusion: The objection based on Section 4 failed and was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the claim of bona fide requirement failed for want of a clear finding on means.

Analysis: Although the record did not contain a specific finding on means, the contention had not been raised before the courts below or in the grounds of the Rule. The Court declined to entertain a new factual contention at that stage, particularly when the material did not show the opposite parties' means to be wholly insufficient.

Conclusion: The contention based on absence of a finding on means failed and was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (iv): Whether the application for pre-emption was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The limitation issue was treated as governed by the earlier Special Bench decision of the same Court. Applying that binding view, the Court rejected the petitioner's plea of delay.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation failed and was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (v): Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation for improvements made in the land.

Analysis: The Court held that any improvements were made at the petitioner's own risk because his purchase was subject to the pre-emptive right. Since the statute made no provision for compensation and no equitable basis justified such a claim, compensation could not be granted.

Conclusion: The claim for compensation was rejected and was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The Rule was discharged, and the order of pre-emption was maintained while the claim for compensation was refused.

Ratio Decidendi: A pre-emptor's statutory right cannot be defeated by a constitutional challenge already concluded by binding precedent, a residuary statutory purpose may be read broadly where the text permits, new factual objections not raised below need not be entertained in revision, and compensation for improvements cannot be claimed where the purchase was subject to the pre-emptive right and the statute does not provide for it.

---