LAWS(BANG)-2007-6-1

MASTER JAINUL ABEDIN Vs. HAJI SALAMULLAH KHAN

Decided On June 06, 2007
Master Jainul Abedin Appellant
V/S
Haji Salamullah Khan Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.08.2005 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.3366 of 1996 making the Rule absolute.

(2.) The pre-emptor instituted Miscellaneous Case No.13 of 1986 under section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act for pre-emption in the Court of Senior Assistant Judge, Chakaria Cox's Bazar in respect of the kabala dated 20.02.1973 executed by Tamijur Rahman,the predecessor of the pre-emptee Nos.6-15 in respect of an area of 1.6 acre from the land appertaining to mouza Pekua Police Station Chakaria, M.R.R. Khatian No.869, Plot No.386 contending, inter alia, that the land of R.S. Khatian No.804 belonged to Naju and Tamizur Rahman each having 8 annas share. Nazu died leaving the pre-emptor and the pre-emptee Nos.16-23 as his heirs. In this way the pre-emptor is a co-sharer by inheritance in the case holding. One Nazir Ahmed disclosed on 25th Magh 1392 B.S. that Tamizur Rahman had transferred the case land on 11.02.1982 in favour of the pre-emptee Nos.1-5. No notice of the kabala under pre-emption was served under section 89 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act upon the pre-emptor. The pre-emptee Nos.1-5 are stranger purchasers. Hence is the case.

(3.) The pre-emptee Nos.1-5 contested the pre-emption case by filing a written objection and contended, inter alia, that the land of R.S. Khatian No.804 belonged to Naju Miah and Tamizur Rahman. Their further case is that by amicable arrangement between Tamijur Rahman and Naju Miah the lands were being possessed separately and was recorded separately in their name. The land of Tamizur Rahman was recorded in P.R.R. Khatian No.804/1 and M.R.R. Khatian No. 869 in his name and the land of Naju Miah and others were separately recorded in P.R.R. Khatian No. 804/2 and M.R.R. Khatian No.870. Thus the original jama was split up and the pre-emptor is a stranger to the said holding. Hence the pre-emption case is liable to fail.