IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Moinul Islam Chowdhury

CIVIL REVISION NO. 4416 OF 1995

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

-And-

IN THE MATTER OF:

Md. Abdus Samad

--- Preemptor-Petitioner. -Versus-

Md. Abdul Hye and others

--- Preemptee-Opposite Parties.

Mr. Subrata Saha, Advocate

--- For the Petitioner. Mr. Mohammad Kamal Hossain, Advocate

---For the opposite parties.

Heard on: 24.07.2023, 27.07.2023, 30.07.2023 and 08.08.2023.

Judgment on: 30.08.2023.

At the instance of the present preemptor-petitioner, Md. Abdus Samad, this Rule was issued upon a revisional application filed under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure calling upon the opposite party No. 1 only to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and order dated 28.06.1995 passed by the then learned Subordinate Judge, Court No. 1, Sherpur in the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 07 of 1994 reversing the judgment and order dated 07.02.1994 passed by the learned Assistant

Judge, Additional Court, Sherpur in the Preemption Case No. 425 of 1973 should not be set aside.

The relevant facts for disposal of this Rule, inter-alia, are that the present petitioner as the preemptor filed the Preemption Case No. 425 of 1973 in the court of the then Munsif, Sherpur claiming a right of preemption under section 96 of the State Acquisition & Tenancy Act, 1950 claiming that total land measuring 1.40 acres was recorded in S. A. Khatian No. 1052 which belonged to opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. It is further claimed that the preemptor executed a purchase deed dated 28.04.1973 and it was registered on 30.04.1973 for purchasing land measuring 50 decimals and thereby he became a co-owner by the purchase land measuring 35 decimals from the same jote (­S¡a). It is further claimed that the preemptee- opposite party No. 1, namely, Md. Abdul Hye, now deceased and also

substituted by his legal heirs, purchased 28 1 decimals of land

2

from the opposite party No. 2, namely, Sree Shatta Ranjan Hori by a registered sale deed No. 7266 dated 30.04.1973 without serving any notice under section 96 of the State Acquisition & Tenancy Act, 1950.

The present preemptee- opposite party No. 1 contested the suit by filing a written objection contending, inter alia, that the preemptor is not a co-sharer in the case land. The preemptor manipulated the sale deed No. 7266 which was executed on 28.04.1973 and registered on 30.04.1973 by managing the Registry Office in order to show the sale deed subsequently. It is further contended that after the purchase of the said land the preemptee- opposite party No. 1 made improvement for making the land for cultivation and other things at the cost of huge money.

The case was heard by the learned Assistant Judge, Sherpur after obtaining and examining the depositions of PWs and DWs and after the conclusion of the hearing the learned Assistant Judge, Sherpur allowed the preemption case by the judgment and order dated 07.02.1994. Being aggrieved the present preemptee-opposite party No. 1 filed the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 07 of 1994 in the court of the learned District Judge, Sherpur which was subsequently heard by the then learned Subordinate Judge, Court No. 1, Sherpur who after hearing the parties and considering the evidence reversed the judgment of the learned trial court by dismissing the preemption case. Being aggrieved the present petitioner as the preemptor filed this revisional application challenging the legality of the impugned judgment of the learned appellate court below and this Rule was issued thereupon.

Mr. Subrata Saha, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the preemptor-petitioner submits that in the face of the clear findings by the trial court, the preemptor’s deed of purchase bearing No. 7266 executed on 28.04.1973