IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION) Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Moinul Islam Chowdhury

Civil Revision No. 900 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.

No one appears

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

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

Heard on: 27.07.2023, 01.08.2023 & 07.08.2023.

Date of Judgment: 07.08.2023.

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. 20 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. 06 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-opposite party filed the Miscellaneous Preemption Case No. 06 of 2003 in the court of the learned Assistant Judge, Bochagonj, Dinajpur under section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950. The plaint of the said case contains that the total land measuring 69 decimals originally belonged to one Jamuram Barman who died leaving behind his legal successors and the successors' names were properly recorded in the S. A. Khatian. One of the successors Sottendro Barman died without any child. Birendro Barman and Hirendra Barman got 8 (eight) annas share by amicable partition. The opposite party No. 2,

Most. Mahfuza Begum purchased 16 1 decimals of land from

2

Digendro Barman who again secretely 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. 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 03.04.2003.

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 in purchasing the suit plot and he lost his right as a contiguous land owner as he sold his all 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 land on 04.12.2002 within the knowledge of the preemptor. The preemptor filed the case at the instruction of other persons. The learned Assistant Judge, Buchagonj, Dinajpur heard the parties in this preemption case and obtained the evidence in support of their respective cases and he came to a conclusion to allow the preemption case by his judgment and order dated 10.02.2009. Being aggrieved the present preemptee purchaser preferred the Miscellaneous Appeal No. 20 of 2009 in the court of the learned District Judge, Dinajpur which was subsequently transferred to the learned Joint District Judge, Court No. 1, Dinajpur who after hearing the respective parties dismissed the appeal and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of the learned trial court.

This revisional application has been filed by the preemptee purchaser challenging the legality of the im