It is true that at present the suit land is situated within Gopalgonj municipality and it is the case of the plaintiff that she along with her husband and other family members has been residing there by erecting huts and that she has also let out some portion of the hut to P.W. 3. The trial court believed the plaintiffs settlement and dakhilas Ext. 1 series upon assigning proper reasons. Plaintiff got the settlement as far back as on 15 Chaitra 1355 B.S. which corresponds to March, 1948 but the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 came into force on 20th October, 1949. As such its application in respect of the suit property does not arise at all. [Para-12] Mrs. Nirmala Bala Dos Vs. Ganesh Chandra Dhupi 7 BLT (AD)-358

Whether “Tilla Ban” or elevated homestead Is non-agricultural land— Whether a holder of a contiguous land can preempt the same—Whether a particular land is non-agricultural land is to be determined with reference to the user thereof and if it is held on lease with reference to the purpose of the said lease—it is to be determined upon evidence and there is no material on record to hold the same a non-agricultural land— There seems to be no reason at all for holding that the case land is non-agricultural land— The wide definition of land is capable of taking in even a Tilla Ban (elevated homestead land) unless it can be shown that it is non-agricultural land—State Acquisition and Tenancy Act (xxxviii of 1951) Ss.2( 16) &96. Sayeda Khatun and another Versus Abdur Rahman and others. 6BLD(AD)330

‘Non-agricultural Tenant’‘—Meaning of such a tenant—Non-agricultural tenant does not include any person who holds any land on which any premises occupied by such person are situated, if such premises have been erected or are owned by the person to whom such occupier is liable to pay rent for such occupation—Mere using of his own materials’ does not make the tenant owner of the land as well as of the structures—The landlords gave permission for using these materials on condition that the tenant would remove his materials whenever the landlords require the land—When land was not leased out but premises thereupon was leased out—
Continuous occupation of the premises for over 12 years by the tenant did not bring him within the category of ‘Non-agricultural tenant’ and as such protection under section 7 was not available to him. Md. Tabibur Rahman Mollah Vs. Md. Sayidur Rahman Being Dead his heirs and legal representatives. 4BLD (AD) 162

Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949
Section 7(5) r/w
Limitation Act
Section 28 r/w
Transfer of Property Act [IV of 1882]
Section 54 —Whether a tenant shall be evicted wherein the plaintiffs possess the suit land after constructing structures thereon.
The existence of a kabuliyat specifically for a term of 11 years does not create any title in the suit land.
The Appellate Division held that the basis of the claim of the plaintiffs was a kabuliyat, which was for a fixed term of 11 years. The document itself clearly provided that at the end of the term of 11 years the land would be handed over to the owner by the tenant after removing all the structures therefrom. In addition, Appellate Division finds that there was nothing on record to suggest as to whether any step was taken after the expiry of the 11 years’ term to extend the tenancy or to acquire title to the property in any other way. Appellate Division is, therefore, of the view that the trial Court and the appellate Court rightly dis-missed the suit for declaration of title.
Md. Jahangir and others -Vs.- Noor Mohammad and others (Civil) 10 ALR (AD) 227-229

Adverse Possession
Under the section a tenant must show that the had been holding the property in question for a period of not less than twelve years without any lease, Mere suggestion of uninterrupted possession for “12 years” or that the plaintiff had acquired “an absolute title” is not enough to raise such a plea. (1) claim adverse possession it must be specifically pleaded in the plaint. (2) hostile must be asserted, (3) adverse possession must be adequate in continuity (4) Evidence must be adduced to show when possession became adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party there was no attempt to prove since when the adverse possession has started. Sree Mati Gouri Das & Ors, Vs. A. B. Hasan Kabir & Ors. 11 BLT (AD)-87.

Oral gift— Whether it attracts the provisions of Section 23 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act—If the property was non-agricultural tenancy it would be hit by section 23 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act— The provisions of Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act do not apply as the suit properly was not non-agricultural land held by a non-agricultural tenant—Section 23 of the Non Agricultural Tenancy Act (XXIII of 1949) is not attracted to oral gift of non-agricultural land held by a tenant directly under the Government long before the coming into force of the said Act. Shah Alam and another Vs. Alhaj Aklima Khatun and another. 3BLD(AD)45

State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
Section 96
Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949
Section 24
Pre-emption– liberation war, the land in question has been converted into non-agricultural land as it appears from the admission of both the parties. Whereas the pre-emptor by suppressing this fact brought the present petition– This word of admission goes to show that before execution of such kabala, pre-emptee No.2 gifted out such land in favour of his foster daughter. From the aforesaid observation made in the impugned judgment, Appellate Division has no other alternative but to hold that the learned trial Court and the learned Judge of the Single Bench of the High Court Division has arrived at a correct decision to the effect that the instant deed under pre-emption was created only to avoid further complication, if any, might have arisen after the death of pre-emptee No.2 and no land has been transferred through this impugned deed except the transfer made by the oral gift long before from the deed in question. The pre-emptee appeared before the Court during hearing this case. This Division has come to know that except this .05 acre land, she had no other land. It appears to us that the balances of convenience are very much preponderant in favour of this lame and helpless lady. It further appears to us that soon after liberation war, the land in question has been converted into non-agricultural land as it appears from the admission of both the parties. Whereas the pre-emptor by suppressing this fact brought the present petition under section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 instead of presenting the application for pre-emption under section 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 which is not at all maintainable. ...Alamgir(Md.) =VS= Mosammat Abeda Begum, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 592] ....View Full Judgment

The Code of Civil Procedure
Section 115
Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949
Section 24(II) (A)
Pre-emption–– The positive findings of the courts below as mentioned above was wrongly interfered by the High Court Division in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court Division totally misdirected itself in holding that the pre-emptor could not filed the pre-emption case within the stipulated period of time prescribed for filing the same holding that the pre-emptor was unsuccessful to prove this case for pre-emption within the statutory period of limitation from the date of her knowledge about the transfer in question. ––High Court Division is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are restored. .....Kohinur Begum =VS= Most Majeda Khatun, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 206] ....View Full Judgment

We are of the view that the pre-emptor-petitioner is a co-sharer of the case land. At the same time, no notice was issued upon him regarding the sale of the case land and he came to know about the kabala deed for the first time on 01.05.2005 and instituted the case on 19.05.2005, within the time i.e. 4 (four) months from the date of knowledge stipulated in Section 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949. The petition is disposed of. The judgment and order of the High Court Division is hereby set aside. ...Rafiq(Md.) =VS= Abu Jafor, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 328] ....View Full Judgment

Pre-emption–
The trial Court dismissed the pre-emption case mainly on the ground that the preemptor could not prove his date of knowledge about the disputed deed of transfer of the case land and found that the case was barred by limitation. The appellate Court, on the other hand, noted that the pre-emptees were in possession of the case property as tenant and, therefore, it was natural that the pre-emptor would not know about the sale of the property. The appellate Court accepted the explanation given by the pre-emptor about his knowledge regarding the sale and transfer of the case property. The High Court Division faced with judgement of reversal of the appellate Court considered the evidence on record and noted that the pre-emptor did not name the person from whom he came to know about the case kabala either in the application for pre-emption or in his evidence. We do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgement, which in our opinion does not call for any interference. Petitioner for leave to appeal is dismissed. .....Promotto Das =VS= Sudip Kumar Ghosh, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 432] ....View Full Judgment

Registration Act, 1908
Section 60
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
Section 96
Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949
Section 24
If the right of pre-emption is waived by the conduct of the pre-emptors before and after purchase, the pre-emption case may be dismissed:
The conduct of the pre-emptors before and after purchase amply proved that the preemptor- petitioners waived their right of pre-emption and as such, the pre-emption case was rightly dismissed by the trial Court. The petitioners intentionally relinquished of their statutory right and thereby waived the right of pre-emption. The Appellate Court assigning cogent reason concurred with the finding of the trial Court; therefore, it does not warrant for any interference by this Court. It is true that the right of pre-emption accrues after the deed entered in the volume as per section 60 of the Registration Act, 1908, but if the right of pre-emption is waived before and after registration, obviously the Court may turn down the prayer of pre-emption; otherwise, the equitable principle of waiver, acquiescence which operate as estoppels will be meaningless. Nothing is absolute in law; therefore, it cannot be held absolutely that the pre-emption right shall accrue only after registration of the deed and if it so, the equitable principles of waiver and acquiescence shall be futile and fruitless. ...Most. Shamima Begum & anr Vs. Most. Rezuana Sultana & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 284 ....View Full Judgment

State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
Section 96
Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949
Section 24
Registration Act, 1908
Section 60
It is expected that the Government shall take necessary step to amend the provision of section 24 in line with the latest amendment of section 96 of the SAT Act, 1950 for the greater interest of the people of the country. The following points may be considered by legislators:
(i) Only the co-sharer tenant by inheritance can file pre-emption case under section 24 of the NAT Act.
(ii) Transfer by way of sale only be pre-emptible and the pre-emption case has to file within two months from the date of registration as per section 60 of the Registration Act or if no notice is given under section 23 of the NAT Act within two months from the date of knowledge.
(iii) The maximum period of filing pre-emption case shall not be more than two years from the date of expiry of the registration of the sale deed.
(iv) The pre-emptor has to deposit consideration money along with 35% of the compensation of consideration money and an amount of 10% annual interest upon the amount of consideration money for the period from the date of execution deed of sale and to the date of filing the application for pre-emption.
(v) The remaining co-sharer tenants by inheritance may join in the original application within two months from the date of service notice or within two months from the date of knowledge of registration of the deed.
(vi) If pre-emption case is allowed, the pre-emptee has to execute a registered sale deed within stipulated time failing which the Court shall execute the registered deed and shall hand over the possession to the pre-emptor.
(vii) Non-agricultural land or holding should be considered as synonym. If the non-agricultural land is recorded in different khatians by survey operation or by mutation proceeding, the right of pre-emption shall be ceased.
(viii) The ceiling of the agricultural or non-agricultural land should not be more than twenty bighas in case of agricultural land and only five bighas in case of non-agricultural land and accordingly, consequential amendment has to be made in Bangladesh Land Hodling (Limitation) Order, 1972(PO 98 of 1972), the Land Reforms Ordinance, 1984(Ordinance No. X of 1984) and Section 90 of the SAT Act (Act XXVIII of 1951).
(ix) As per Rules of Business and Allocation of Business, it is the subject of the Ministry of the Land, therefore, the Ministry of Land may take necessary step to review the provisions of law relating to pre-emption as set out under Section 24 of the NAT Act. ...Most. Shamima Begum & anr Vs. Most. Rezuana Sultana & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 284 ....View Full Judgment

Whether because of the Pourashava road, the land stands partitioned by the act of a statutory body, and thus the pre-emptor is not a co-sharer.
The Appellate Division held that on the petitioner’s plea that the pre-emptor was present, but expressed unwillingness to buy the land, the trial Court made a factual finding that the same could not be proved. In any event the law is that right to pre-empt accrues only after transfer, not before. The Appellate Division is unable to accept the contention that the Pourashava road caused the land to be partitioned, because that cannot be drawn to the concept of partition, which has to be voluntary or by judicial order.
Awlas Hossain Babor -Vs.- Ziaul Hasan Chowdhury and others (Civil) 13 ALR (AD) 69-70

The right of the pre-emption accured on and from the date of registering the deed under section 60 of the Registration Act or from the date of knowledge of such transfer till 4(four) months thereafter– In the present case the date was admittedly executed on 4-11-2007 and was endorsed in the volume under section 60 of the Act in 2011 and the pre-emptor having come to know about the transfer on 20-1-2011 the pre-emption case has been filled on 4-2-2011 which is very much within the period of limitation. In section 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act it is provided that if a co-sharer tenant owns a portion of land in any plot, he is to be treated as co-sharer in the entire plot even if the land of that plot is recorded in more than one Khatian. Thus in spite of the fact that the khatian is separated by mutation the pre-emptor is still a co-sharer in the case plot. This vital aspect has not at all been considered by the courts below and thereby both the Courts below erred in law in disallowing pre-emption. The High Court Division having rightly considered this aspect of law made the Rule absolute and set-aside the judgments of both the Courts below. .....Selina Gulshan Ara Gul Hasna =VS= Mashiur Rahman, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 264] ....View Full Judgment

Principle of waiver and estoppel
Respondent No. 2 the alleged vendor of the petitioner having acquired right, title and interest in the case land by virtue of the solenama, where the pre-emptor-respondent was a defendant—Held The compromise decree having not been passed against the pre-emptor the same did not affect her right of preemption. [Para-5] Md. Siddiqur Rahman Vs. Most. Jinnatunnessa & Anr (Civil) 7BLT (AD)-28

and
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section-99
Whether pre-emption in one single application for separate purchases by different sellers and purchasers be maintainable.
Both the trial court and the High Court Division on appeal allowed the respondents application for preemption—Held :
We think the better view is that the principle as section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure will come to the aid of respondent No. 1. Alhaj Md. Khalilur Rahman & Ors. Vs. Abdur Rahman Bhuiyan & Ors. 7 BLT (AD)-268

State Acquisition & Tenancy Act, 1950
Sections 89 and 96
Non Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949
Section 24
Pre-emption–– The statutory deposit being a condition precedent to the application being entertained, its non-compliance renders the application liable to be dismissed. The direction for depositing the balance consideration money out of time is also illegal and without jurisdiction–– The pre-emptor filed the application in the appellate Court for conversion of the said pre-emption application under section 24 of the Act, 1949 into an application under section 96 of the Act, 1950 and also prayed for depositing the rest of compensation amount which obviously in violation of statutory provisions as contemplated in section 96(3) of the State Acquisition of Tenancy Act, after the expiry of limitation of deposit of statutory compensation. If such deposit is allowed after expiry of limitation violating statutory provisions then the legal proposition as contemplated in the statute would be nugatory. ––Provisions of section 96(3) provide that an application made under sub-section (1) of the section 96 of the Act, 1950 shall be dismissed unless the applicant or applicants, at the time of making it, deposit in the Court the amount of the consideration money or the value of the transfer-red holding or portion or share of the holding as stated in the notice under section 89 or in deed of transfer, as the case may be, together with compensation at the rate of ten percent centum of such amount, according to the above provisions, consequence, has been provided for non-compliance of the provision of law, in that view the provision is mandatory, the High Court Division missed the said provision of law at the time of deciding the revisional application, thus, committed an error of an important question of law. .....Rabiul Islam (Md) =VS= Sultan Mahmud, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 490] ....View Full Judgment

Because of the decree in the partition suit as there has been ceasing of co-sharership between the plaintiff and the defendant of the partition suit that ended in final decree upon allotment of separate saham to respective parties and that as the preemptors got the jama of khatian No.3232/1 (Ext.3) split up in respect of their land purchased from the heirs of Hannan, son of Abdur Razzaque and got a separate khatian opened in their names before the transfer to the pre-emptee and consequent thereupon as they ceased to be the co- sharers of khatian No.3232/I or in other words land of the said khatian pre-emption sought for on the basis of purchase of land made from the heirs of Abdul Hannan, son of Abdur Razzaque against the preemptee who purchased the land sought to be pre-empted from heirs of Abdur Razzaque was not available. The High Court Division as well as the appellate Court in the materials on record as discussed above assumed that khatian No.3232/I/I (Ext.A) was started in the name of preemptors in respect of the land Abdul Gafur got in pursuant to the decree in partition suit and thereupon erroneously -allowed preemption. Alfazuddin Ahmed Vs. Abdur Rahim & Ors. 13 BLT (AD)236

The application of section 24 NAT Act has been excluded by the provision of section 85(2) of NAT Act in respect of the land mentioned in section 85(1) (a.b.c.d.e) and land of Dhanmondi R.A being the land of one of the category of lands as in section 85(1) (a.b.c.d.e.) application of provision of section 24 NAT Act has been excluded by section 85(2) NAT Act. Kamrun Nahar Begum. Vs Nurul Alain Chowdhury & Anr. 13 BLT (AD)75

read with Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section-2(2)
A reference to Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure shows that a decree may be either preliminary or final. Explanation to Section 2(2) provides that “a decree is preliminary when further proceedings have to be taken before the suit can he completely dispose of. It is final when such adjudication completely disposes of the suit”. In a suit for partition, after filing of the report along with the case map, field book, saham list by the Advocate Commissioner final decree takes effect and thereafter remains nothing to be done. In a pre-emption proceeding under Section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, the question of co-sharership in the tenancy is relevant, but the Section 24(1) of Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act the co-shareship in the land is maternal. In that view of the matter, the passing of the final decree in a partition suit finally determines the rights of the co-sharers in the land. Hence, the application for the pre-emptor respondents on the basis of co-shareship is not maintainable. Md. Shafiuddin Chowdhury Vs. Abdul Karim & Ors. 8BLT(AD)-165

Conversion of application filed under section 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act to section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950:
It further be noted that the application filed under section 24 of the Act, 1949 may be converted to an application under section 96 of the Act, 1950 if such application for conversion is filed within 120 days, i.e. within period of limitation with rest of the deposit and concerned Court allowed the such application of conversation. The application for conversation cannot be allowed after the expiry of limitation as stipulated in the section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act. …Md. Rabiul Islam & ors. Vs. Sultan Mahmud & ors., (Civil), 15 SCOB [2021] AD 95 ....View Full Judgment

Pre-emption— Pre-emptee contested the case by filing written objection, alleging, that since the impugned deed is out and out a deed of exchange; it cannot be brought within the mischief of section 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act, 1949) for the purpose of pre-emption.
On conclusion of the trial, the learned Assistant Judge, Shahjadpur, Sirajgonj after hearing the parties, considering the evidences and documents on record allowed the pre-emption case in favour of the pre-emptor by his judgment and order dated 16-9-2007. —Feeling aggrieved, by the judgment and order of the trial Court, the pre-emptees as appellants preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No.43 of 2007 before the learned District Judge, Sirajgonj who by his judgment and order dated 23-9-2008 disallowed the appeal and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of the trial Court. —Feeling aggrieved, by the judgment and order dated 23-9-2008 passed by the District Judge, Sirajgonj, the pre-emptees preferred Civil Revision No.4430 of 2008 before the High Court Division and obtained Rule. —In due course, a single Bench of the High Court Division upon hearing the parties made the Rule absolute by the impugned judgment and order dated 10-12-2009 and set-aside the judgments and orders of the Courts below.
This Division has consistently held that the revisional Court cannot disturb the concurrent findings of facts unless the Courts below misread the evidence, misconstruction of the document. In the present case, there is no misreading of the evidence, misconstruction of the documents or law. Therefore, interference by the Single Bench of the High Court Division was not justified. —The appeal is allowed with condition that the pre-emptor will pay Taka 1,00,000 (Taka one lac) only in addition to money deposit in Court within 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the order in the trial Court, failing which, the appeal shall stand dismiss. .....Zul Haque Mondal (Md) =VS= Md Wahed Ali, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 21] ....View Full Judgment

Pre-emption-Whether the right of emption is available when the land sought 1 be pre-empted has already been recovery a the vendor—The main question for exemption will be whether he actually got back land—If the answer is the affirmative. The position will be as if no transfer was at made by him—If it is found that the resale mere paper transaction then the resale may ignored and preemption may be allowed. Shafi Khan Vs. Mannujan Hussain others, 3 BLD (AD) 303

Pre-emption—Co-Sharer’s right when ceases—A co-sharer seeking preempting must have a subsisting interest in the holding at the time when he files an application f pre-emption. Sunil Krishna Banik and others Kailash Chandra Saha and others. 4 BLD (AD) 320

Pre-emptors are required to establish a definite and distinct case, and not a ‘prima facie’ case of being co-sharers of the land sought to be pre-empted. Hiran Chandra Dey v. Md. Abdul Quiyum and others, 22 BLD (AD) 128.

Right of pre-emption- Whether available in respect of land held by tenant under Government for 99 years lease. The State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950— Section 81A(2)—
The land held by tenant under 99 years lease under the Government, is not subject to pre-emption as contemplated under section 85(2) of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949. Therefore the lands of the Dhanmondi Residential area are not subject to pre-emption. Mosaddeque Hossain (Md.) Vs. Dr. Esmat Mirza and others. 3, MLR (1998) (AD) 145.

Right of pre-emption of cosharer of land-After partition—
Right of pre-emption under section 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 is available to the co-sharer of the land while such right unde'r section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 is available to cosharer of the tenancy. After the final decree in partition suit finally determining the right of the cosharers in the land, the right of preemption under section 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act is not available to the cosharer. The plea of execution of the final decree is immaterial. Shaji uddin Chowdhury (Md.) VS. Md. Abdul Karim and others. 5 MLR (2000) (AD) 19.

Right of preemption— Partial pre-emption not permissible—
The provisions of pre-emption in section 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 shall not apply to transfer to a cosharer in the tenancy whose existing interest has accrued otherwise than by purchase. Partial pre-emption is not permissible under section 24 of the non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949. Transfer of portion or share of non-agricultural land to a stranger opens right of pre-emption to the cosharer. But no such right is available where land is transferred to a cosharer in the tenancy. S.M. Bashiruddin Vs. Zahurul Islam Chowdhury and another. (1983) 35 DLR (AD) 230.

Pre-emptors are required to establish a definite and distinct case, and not a ‘prima facie’ case of being co-sharers of the land sought to be pre-empted. Hiran Chandra Dey v. Md. Abdul Quiyum and others, 22 BLD (AD) 128.

Conversion of Pre-emption application filed under section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 to section 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949:
The pre-emption application filed under section 96 of the Act, 1950 may be converted to a pre-emption case under section 24 of the Act, 1949 because the deposit of compensation would not be a impediment in case of such conversion allowing the amendment. …Md. Rabiul Islam & ors. Vs. Sultan Mahmud & ors., (Civil), 15 SCOB [2021] AD 95 ....View Full Judgment

The Evidence Act, 1872
Sections 91 and 92
Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act
Section 24
Pre-emption– It is a settled principle of law that in exercising revisional jurisdiction the Court is required to identify any misreading or no-consideration of the evidence on record, or misconstruction of documents. The High Court Division failed to do so. Appellate Division is of the view that the finding of the High Court Division that the exchange is unequal, is not justified in the facts and circumstance of the case. The pre-emptee has given up a bigger quantum of land in exchange for a smaller quantum of land due to his necessity. Appellate Division does not find anything untoward in the transaction of exchange between the pre-emptee-opposite-party No. 1 and opposite-party No. 2. Moreover, in the absence of any allegation of fraud etc, as mentioned in proviso (1) of section 92 of the Evidence Act, the recital of the document cannot be contradicted by oral evidence as provided by sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act. In the absence of any fraud, intimidation, illegality etc. the document will speak for itself. The contents of the document will speak of the truth of the agreement reached by the parties thereto. The judgment and order by the High Court Division is set-aside. .....Shahed Ali (Md) =VS= Abdul Hafiz, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 217] ....View Full Judgment

Preemption– Appellate Division has meticulously examined the finding and decisions of the Court of appeal below as well as revisional Court along with the facts and circumstances in the case and found that the finding of the trial Court is much acceptable and logical than that of others. The appeal is allowed, without any order as to costs. The impugned judgment and order along with the judgment and order of the appellate Court below is hereby set aside. The judgment and order of the trial Court is hereby restored. .....Firozur Rahman(Md.) =VS= Nasima Banu(Most.) , (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 158] ....View Full Judgment

State Acquisition & Tenancy Act, 1950
Section 96 r/w
The Non-Agricultural & Tenancy Act, 1949
Section 24
Pre-emption– The preemptor-petitioner while deposing before court, though denied this alleged fact that he obtained the certified copy of the case kabala in the year 1982 for the opposite party No.2, but he did not deny the fact that he was the engaged lawyer of the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 filed Other Suit No.70 of 1982 challenging the genuineness of the impugned kabala. In the circumstances it is not believable at all that the preemptor-petitioner could not know about the case kabala before his alleged date of knowledge. From the facts and circumstances stated above it is rather proved beyond any doubt that the preemptor-petitioner knew about the case transfer in the year 1982. .....Shantipada Shil =VS= Sunil Kumar Sarker, [3 LM (AD) 459] ....View Full Judgment

Pre-emption– In a proceeding under section 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act the question of co-sharership in the holding or tenancy is immaterial, the question of co-sharership in the ‘land’ is material. After partition by metes and bounds of the land of a holding or even of a plot or plots among its co-sharers each of such co-sharers loses their co-sharership in all other land of the holding or the plot or plots excepting his own share only even if the holding or tenancy remains in tact and he, therefore, cannot claim pre-emption under section 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act if any share or portion thereof of any other owner of this holding or plot is transferred.
The High Court Division has committed wrong in allowing the case for pre-emption under section 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act holding that inspite of partition the pre-emptors are still co-sharers of the land transferred since the original holding was not divided and the original tenancy also was not separated. These findings and decision of the High Court Division require to be set aside. ...Asad Ali(Md.) =VS= Golam Sarwar, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 141] ....View Full Judgment

The Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949
Section 24(11)(a)
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
Section 2(13), 117(1)(c)
Pre-emption– Only separation of Jama/Khatian by a party will cause him to cease to be a co-sharer in the jama but co-sharership will also be ceased by a final decree in a partition suit or by a registered deed of partition– 55 DLR (AD) 108 (Alfazuddin Ahmed Vs. Abdur Rahman), 1 ADC (Abdul Munim alias Tanu Miah Vs. Mahfuzur Rahman and others (1 ADC 515), 54 DLR (AD)126 (Hiran Chandra Dey and others Vs. Md. Abdul Quyum and another) and 62 DLR(AD)250 cases, it appears that this Division held that not only separation of Jama/Khatian by a party will cause him to cease to be a co-sharer in the jama but co-sharership will also be ceased by a final decree in a partition suit or by a registered deed of partition. That means either of the two will cause a person to cease his co-sharership in the case jote. Thus, the 62 DLR case has not overruled the contention that ‘only by a partition suit or partition deed the co-sharership is extinguished’. So in this case by separating the Jama the pre-emptor and/or his predecessor having already lost her/his character of co-sharership in the case jote so the pre-emptor is no more a co-sharer and as such his right to pre-empt as a co-sharer does not exist anymore.
Thus the finding and decision arrived at by the High Court Division being based on proper appreciation of fact and law the same does not call for any interference by this Division. This civil appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. ...Abul Kasem Md. Kaiser =VS= Md. Ramjan Ali, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 284] ....View Full Judgment

Pre-emption–– On perusal of the materials on record, it appears that in the present case, the vendor of the opposite party No.5 was Taherunnessa. She along with others purchased five annas eight gonads and three karas share from the recorded tenant Behari Lal who was the owner of six annas two gondas two kara share. She along with others on 28.12.1983 mutated their jama by filing mutation Case No.605 PK of 1983-84. After separation of holding the other co-sharers ceased to be co-sharers and as such, the pre-emptors have lost their right of pre-emption. ...Khalilur Rahman Mathbar(Md.) =VS= Jannatun Ara, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 474] ....View Full Judgment

Transfer of the Property Act
Section 108(B) r/w
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act
Section 81A
Non Agricultural Tenancy Act
Section 26A
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Order 21 Rule 58
Lease deed–– The lessor was entitled to get back the property after expiry of 50 years–– It appears from the lease deed that there was clear stipulation that the lessor agreed with the lessee that lease shall endure and subsist for a period of 50 years, from the 1st day of January, 1957 to 21st day of December, 2007. From that aforesaid condition of the lease and pursuant to the provision of section 108(B) of the Transfer of the Property Act, it is apparent that the lessor was entitled to get back the property after expiry of 50 years. After expiry of that 50 years tenure, the lease hold rights of the appellants have been extinguished. .....Abdul Halim Gaznabi =VS= M.M. Badsha Shirazi, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 529] ....View Full Judgment

Tenancy right under Government— Whether after the acquisition of rent receiving interest a leasee under the Municipality has become a tenant under the. Government—
Whether he can be evicted from the land by the Municipality—
Whether Municipality is a local authority—Whether the land belonging to the Municipality is exempt from acquisition—
Local authority is understood to mean an authority entrusted with the administration of a local fund— The Municipality is a local authority—The property had vested in the Municipality which is not a rent receiver and therefore exempt from acquisition of the property—The defendant did not acquire tenancy right under the Government—Defendant also did not acquire tenancy right under the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act since land belonging to the Municipality is exempt from its provisions. Narendra Basu Roy and another Vs. Municipal Committee, Mymensingh. 6BLD (AD) 297

Settlement of Non- Agricultural land within a municipality must be effected by registered document.
Rights of lessor's transferee.
The settled principle of law is that settlement of non-agricultural land within a municipality can not be effected by unregistered document. The same must be affected by a bilateral registered document executed by both the lessor and the lessee. Settlement of by unregistered amolnama is hit by section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Khondker Ansar -Vs.- A.T.M. Monsur Ali Mallik 2 ALR (2013)(AD) 209