IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION) Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Moinul Islam Chowdhury

Civil Revision No. 899 of 2020

IN THE MATTER OF:

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

(Against Judgment And Order)

And

IN THE MATTER OF:

Sree Sotish Chandra Ray

--- Preemptee-Appellant-Petitioner. -versus-

Sree Hirendra Barmon alias Binod Chandra Ray and others

--- Preemptor-Opposite Parties.

Mr. Md. Ahia, Advocate

--- For the Preemptee-Petitioner. Mr. Md. Badsha Alamgir, Advocate

--- For the Preemptor-Opposite Party No. 1.

Heard on: 22.08.2023, 23.08.2023 & 24.08.2023.

Date of Judgment: 24.08.2023.

At the instance of the present preemptee-appellant-petitioner, Sree Sotish Chandra Ray, 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 to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and order dated 23.10.2019 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, Court No. 1, Dinajpur in the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 21 of 2009 dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 10.02.2009 passed

by the learned Assistant Judge, Buchagonj, Dinajpur in the Miscellaneous Case No. 08 of 2003 allowing the preemption case should not be set aside.

The relevant facts for disposal of this Rule, inter-alia, are that the present opposite party No. 1, Sree Hirendra Barmon alias Binod Chandra Ray as the preemptor filed the Miscellaneous Preemption Case No. 08 of 2003 in the court of the learned Assistant Judge, Bochagonj, Dinajpur under section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950. A petition for right of preemption contains that the suit land originally belonged to one Jamuram Barman total land measuring 69 decimals situated in C. S. Khatian No. 136, Dag No. 1523, Mouza- Eshania, Police Station- Buchagonj, District- Dinajpur. The said Jamuram Barman died leaving behind his 5 (five) sons as the legal successors, namely, Sottendro Barman, Degendro Barman, Birendra Barman, Rajendra Barman and Hirendra Barman. Subsequently, their names were properly recorded in the S. A. Khatian. One of the successors Sottendro Barman died without any children, as such, 4 (four) brothers became owners. Birendro Barman and Hirendra Barman got (4 annas + 4 annas = 8 annas) eight annas share each by way of

a succession of amicable settlements. Hirendra Barman sold 16 1

2 decimals of land to the opposite party No. 2, Abdullah Masum

purchased 16 1 decimals of land from Digendro Barman who again

2

secretly sold the same suit land to the opposite party No. 1 (Hirendrar Barman alias Binod Chandra Ray) on 04.12.2002 which is the contiguous land of the preemptor. Opposite party No. 2 Abdullah Masum secretely sold the suit land to the opposite party No. 1 on 26.02.2003 which was the contiguous land of the preemptor. Preemptor is a co-sharer of the land and preemptee is a stranger. In the above transfer no notice was served upon him. Premptor after knowing the matter on surch he arranged certified copy of the Kabala deed dated 26.02.2003 on 27.02.2003, therefore, filed the Miscellaneous case on 26.04.2003. The present preemptor opposite party is a co-sharer of the said land as the contiguous land and the present preemptee-petitioner is a stranger to the land which was sold without serving any notice or the preemtor did not know about the said matter. Subsequently, by obtaining a certified copy on 26.02.2003 he could know as to the transfer of the said land. Thus, a miscellaneous case was filed on 26.04.2003.

The preemptee-opposite party No. 1 contested the said miscellaneous case by filing a written objection contending, inter alia, that the preemptor was never interested for purchasing the suit plot and he lost his right as a contiguous land owner as he sold his entire land to one Abdullah Masum in the year 1987, as such, he is not a co-sharer in the plot but the preemptee purchased the lan