ABDUL MUMIN ALIAS TANU MIAH Vs. MAHFUJUR RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals, by leave, are against the order dated June 30, 1997 of a Division Bench of the High Court Division passed in Civil Order Nos. 3230, 3231, 3232, 3233 and 3234 of 1997 rejecting the 5 revisional applications summarily. The revisional applications were filed against the judgment and order dated 10.4.1996 of the 1st Court of Additional District Judge, Sylhet, passed in Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 76, 77, 78, 79 and 80 of 1994 allowing the same upon reversing the judgment and order dated August 31, 1994 in Miscellaneous Case (Preemption) Nos.179,180,181,182, and 183 of 1989 allowing the same. The Miscellaneous Cases were filed under Section 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 seeking pre-emption in respect of the sale by 5 different kabalas dated 5.9.1988. The claim of pre-emption was made on the assertion that by inheritance the pre-emptor is the co-sharer of the land of lot Nos. 2183 and 2184 of khatian No. 450.

(2.) The pre-emptor claimed to have inherited the land of khatian No. 450 from his father late Abdul Mogni and uncle Abdul Ghani who died leaving only daughter, Respondent No. 2 Farida Begum. It was the case of the pre-emptor that Farida Begum as co-sharer of the khatian in question sold parcels of land by five registered kabalas dated September 5, 1988 to Mehfuzur Rahman, the Respondent No.1 in each of the appeal. It was also averred by the pre-emptor that a suit for partition, partition Suit No. 111 of 1988, is pending before the 2nd Court of Joint District Judge, Sylhet as regard the land of khatian No. 450 filed by one of the co-sharers by name Abdul Karim.

(3.) The prayer for pre-emption was opposed upon assertion that there was amicable partition of the land of khatian in question amongst the co-sharers and the pre-emptor and other co-sharers of the khatian had separated their jamas and have recorded their names in respect of their respective saham got by amicable partition in separate khatians, that the pre-emptor in respect of his share separated the jama and has got his name recorded in khatian No. 450/2 and as such pre-emptor ceased to be the co-sharer of the land of the case khatian. The pre-emptees, contended that they had effected improvement of the disputed land.