MD. MURTUZA ALI Vs. RENU BIBI ALIAS SAIFURNESSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These review petitions for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04.12.2007 passed by this Division dismissing the civil petition for leave to appeal No.1055 of 2006 and affirming the judgment and order dated 29.03.2006 of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.1805 of 1994 reversing the judgment and order dated 14.02.1994 of the then Subordinate Judge, Artha Rin Adalat, Sylhet in Miscellaneous Appeal No.31 of 1994 and affirming the judgment and order dated 08.03.1993 of the learned Assistant Judge, Additional Court, Sadar Sylhet in Miscellaneous Case (Pre-emption) No.19 of 1992.

(2.) The facts of the case are that respondent Nos. 2-5 sold 1,80 acres of land of the case plots to the petitioners by 2(two) deeds dated 03.02.1977 and 08.02.1977. The respondent No.1 claiming to be a co-sharer by inheritance (being sister of respondent Nos. 2-5) filed two miscellaneous cases for pre-emption under Section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950. The Miscellaneous Case No.102 of 1980 was filed against sale under the deed dated 03.02.1977 and the Miscellaneous Case No.103 of 1980 was filed against sale under deed dated 08.02.1977 and the said Miscellaneous Case No. 102 of 1980 on transfer was renumbered as Miscellaneous Case No.19 of 1992 of the learned Assistant Judge, Additional Court, Sylhet and the other one was renumbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 20 of 1992 of the learned Assistant Judge, Additional Court, Sylhet and both were tried analogous and disposed of by a single judgment dated 08.03.1993 allowing both the Miscellaneous Cases.

(3.) The case of the respondent No.1 as pre-emptor, in short, is that she is the co-sharer in the case land with the respondent Nos.2-5. The respondent Nos. 2-5 transferred 1.80 acres of land of case plot Nos. 2630, 2631 and 2632 to the petitioners by 2 (two) deeds dated 03.02.1977 and 08.02.1977 each for .90 acres without serving any notice under Section 89 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 and without her knowledge the petitioner being a married women lived with her husband and came to know about the sale when she on Nayor came to her paternal house on 10.03.1980 and thereafter definitely learnt about it on obtaining certified copies of the deeds of sale and filed the pre-emption cases on making deposit of value of case land as per deed with 10% compensation as required by law and total quantity of land held by her would be far less than 100 bighas.