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

Pre-emption– The pre-emptor has failed to prove that he derived his knowledge about the kabala dated–
We have also perused the evidence. It appears that the pre-emptor claims to have derived his knowledge about the kabala in question from his full brother Mozammal Huq P.W.2 who derived his knowledge of the kabala from one Abdul Goni on 2nd Jaistha 1388 B.S. but this Abdul Gani was not examined in the case. Therefore, it appears that the pre-emptor has failed to prove that he derived his knowledge about the kabala sought to be pre-empted on 2nd Jaistha, 1388 B.S. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the view that the High Court Division erred in law in not assessing the evidence properly and thereby discharging the Rule. The appeal is accordingly allowed without costs. .....Humayun Kabir Khan =VS= Md. Nurul Haque, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 421] ....View Full Judgment

It is clear that the appellate Court did not properly assess all the evidence and materials on record and did not reverse the findings of the trial Court, which were based on evidence and materials on record and arrived at upon giving cogent reasons. The High Court Division was patently in error simply endorsing the order of the appellate Court without considering whether the appellate Court had properly reversed the decision of the trial Court. The appeal is allowed, without however, any order as to costs. The judgement and order of the High Court Division is hereby set aside. .....Abul Hossain =VS= Most. Sakina Khatun, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 47] ....View Full Judgment

Pre-emption– No address of the purchaser was known to the plaintiff at the relevant time and as such, the question of serving letter demanding pre-emption by post upon the purchaser did not arise–
The Appellate Division observed that the High Court Division came to a finding that by a power of attorney dated 28.10.1995, D.W.1 was appointed as the tadbirkar of defendant No.1 and that the disputed kabala was registered on 26.09.1994 and that the demand was made on 16.01.1995 and that the suit was filed on 05.03.1995 which showed that D.W.1 was not the tadbirkar of defendant No.1 when the demand was made on 16.01.1995. The High Court Division further found that the mother of defendant No.1 who disclosed for the first time about the disputed sale was the competent person before whom the demand of pre-emption was made by the plaintiff and that the finding of the appellate Court in this regard was without any material on record. The High Court Division noted that no address of the purchaser was known to the plaintiff at the relevant time and as such, the question of serving letter demanding pre-emption by post upon the purchaser did not arise. Having gone through the impugned judgment, Appellate Division finds that the High Court Division on meticulous consideration of the evidence on record reversed the findings of the appellate Court and restored the judgment of the trial Court. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. .....Farid Ahmed =VS= Tofazzal Ahmed & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 184] ....View Full Judgment

Preemptor filed an application under Section 96 of the State Acquisition and tenancy Act in the Court of Assistant Judge, 9th Court Dhaka giving rise to preemption Miscellaneous Case being No.69 of 2006. The case is being contested by the pre-emptee-petitioners by filing written objection. the pre-emptees filed an application for rejection of the pre—emption application on grounds (1) all necessary parties were not impleaded in the preemption application and (ii) in filing the pre-emption application, the preemptor did not comply with the provisions of Section 96 (3) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy - Act as amended in 2006. .....Alhaj Md. Maruf Hasan Swapan & another =VS= Kohinur Aziz & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 273] ....View Full Judgment

It is true that the High Court Division in its revisional jurisdiction cannot reassess the evidence on record and should not readily reverse the concurrent findings of fact of the trial Court and the appellate Court which are both Courts of fact. However, it is within the jurisdiction of the High Court Division in its revisional jurisdiction to see whether the trial Court and the appellate Court have misread or left out of consideration any evidence on record. The High Court Division rightly held that the pre-emptor was not able to prove that the transaction was a sale. Hence, we are inclined to agree with the High Court Division that the deed in question is a deed of exchange and, therefore, the application for pre-emption was rightly rejected by reversing the decisions of the trial Court and appellate Court. .....Abdul Mobin (Md.) =VS= Abdur Rab, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 6] ....View Full Judgment

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, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 459] ....View Full Judgment

We state the law that no application for pre-emption under section 96 of the Act, 1950 can be rejected on the ground of long lapse of time, if the same is found to have been filed within the statutory period of limitation, making the statutory deposit and impleading all the necessary parties and of course subject to the fulfillment of other requirements of law as regards the right of pre-emption of the pre-emptors. So, the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained and that must be interfered with. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division is set aside and those of the Courts below are restored. .....Syed Emdad Hussain =VS= Muzahar Ali Mallick, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 466] ....View Full Judgment

Pre-emption of the case–
The High Court Division as the revisonal Court upheld the judgment and order of the appellate Court for the reason that the trial Court did not consider the whole aspect of the case, whilst the appellate Court considered the deposition of the witnesses, evidence on record, the impugned deed and location of the suit land.
The appellate Court also rightly refused to accept the solenama, the contents of which tend to show that pre-emptee No.2 was in collusion with the pre-emptors having received money outside the Court. Clearly this was not the money which the pre-emptor had deposited with the pre-emption application.
In the light of the facts and circumstances discussed above, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgement, which in our view does not call for any interference. .....Tafazzal Haq(Md.) =VS= Nazrul Islam(Md.), (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 284] ....View Full Judgment

Pre-emption of the case–
Both the Courts below also found that the pre-emptees could not prove that the pre-emption case was barred by the principles of waiver and acquiescence. These findings of the Courts below having been based on proper appreciation of evidence on record should not be interfered with by the High Court Division as there is no mis-reading or non-reading of evidence on record.
We are of the view that High Court Division was not justified in setting aside the concurrent findings of fact of the Courts below.
This civil appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court Division is set aside. The judgment and order passed by the appellate Court affirming the judgment and order of the trial Court is hereby restored. .....Ramoni Golder =VS= Gopal Chandra Chowdhury, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 288] ....View Full Judgment

Pre-emption application fail for non deposit of the value of the deed under Section 96 (3) of the Act, 1950–
A deed of sale and not a deed of exchange, that the pre-emptors were co-shares in the case holding, the miscellaneous case was filed within time, there was no defect of party were ball based on proper sifting of the evidence and the High Court Division was totally wrong in holding that the deed in question was a deed of ewaz nama and not a deed of sale, the pre-emption application must fail for non deposit of the value of the deed under pre-emption and the statutory compensation thereon as discussed above and accordingly, we find on merit in the appeal and in the same is dismissed. .....Ruhul Amin (Md) =VS= Md Forkan Ullah, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 65] ....View Full Judgment

Pre- emption is the right to purchase something in advance of others or a prior appropriation of something.
If a pre-emptor succeeds in having the property transferred to himself from the purchaser by private arrangements instead of bringing a suit, it would not be right to say that he has not exercised his right of pre-emption. ….. ( Mehr Baksh vs. Mala Dad, 3 DLR (1951) 224 )

Pre-emption–
Since the pre-emptees are still co-sharers of holding by inheritance, we are of the view that the High Court Division committed error of law in allowing the prayer for pre-emption against them upon setting aside the concurrent findings of facts inasmuch as such application was barred against the co-shares. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court Division is hereby set aside. …Anwar Hossain @ Babul Miah (Md) =VS= Hakimuddin, (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 45] ....View Full Judgment

Pre-emption–
A pre-emption suit was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants, namely Manzoor Hussain, to seek pre-emption of two kanals and nineteen marlas of land sold vide sale mutation No. 2830 dated 5 May 2001. The suit was dismissed by the learned Judge of the Trial Court vide judgment dated 27 November 2006 on the ground that there were material contradictions in the testimony of the plaintiff’s witnesses. However, the appeal which was filed was allowed by the learned District Judge, Chakwal vide judgment dated 25 February 2008 and the suit was decreed. Thereafter, the respondent (purchaser) invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court and the learned Judge of the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court vide impugned judgment dated 14 October 2014 was pleased to allow it on the grounds that the pre-emptor failed to establish delivery or receipt of the Talb-i-Ishhad notice and the postman who took the said notice for delivery was not produced, consequently, the pre-emption suit filed by Manzoor Hussain was again dismissed.
The Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 explicitly sets out the documents which must be produced in original, which in the present case would be the registered post receipt (exhibit P3) and acknowledgment receipt (exhibit P4), and photo copies, that is secondary evidence, could only be produced as permitted; and as regards extracts of official records, that is, the aks shajarah kishtwar (exhibit P2), mutation (exhibit P5) and jamabandi (exhibit P6), certified copies thereof had to be tendered in evidence. In not observing the rules of evidence unnecessary complications for litigants are created, which may result in avoidable adverse orders or in the case being remanded on such score, which would be avoided by abiding by the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. This appeal is dismissed, but with no order as to costs. ...Manzoor Hussain =VS= Misri Khan, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (SC) 31] ....View Full Judgment

অগ্রক্রয়যোগ্য- গ্রামাঞ্চলে অবস্থিত জমি রাষ্ট্রীয় অধিগ্রহণ ও প্রজাস্বত্ব আইনের ৯৬ ধারা অনুসারে অগ্রক্রয়যোগ্য, যদিও সে জমি বসতবাড়ি হিসেবে ব্যবহৃত হয়- আপিল বিভাগে নিষ্পত্তিকৃত বিভিন্ন মামলায় অনেক সিদ্ধান্ত রয়েছে যেখানে বলা হয়েছে যে, "আইনে এখন এটা প্রতিষ্ঠিত যে মিউনিসিপিলিটির বাইরে রায়তের বসতবাড়ি রাষ্ট্রীয় অধিগ্রহণ ও প্রজাস্বত্ব আইনের ৯৬ ধারা অগ্রক্রয়যোগ্য" (স্ব-অনুদিত)। আপিল বিভাগের বিচারপতি জনাব রুহুল আমিন মো: ফজলু মিয়া এবং অন্যান্য বনাম আসাবুর রহমান এবং অন্যান্য, ১০ বি. এল. সি. (এডি)১০ মামলায় এই অভিমতটি ব্যক্ত করেন। অত্র বিভাগ ২০১৩ খ্রিস্টাব্দে আব্দুল কুদ্দুস বনাম রাকিব আলি এবং অন্যান্য ১ সি. এল. আর. (২০১৩)১৩৩, মামলায় একই দৃষ্টিভঙ্গি ব্যক্ত করেন যেখানে বলা হয়েছে যে ,"এটা সুস্পষ্টভাবে প্রতিষ্ঠিত যে, গ্রামাঞ্চলে অবস্থিত জমি রাষ্ট্রীয় অধিগ্রহণ ও প্রজাস্বত্ব আইনের ৯৬ ধারা অনুসারে অগ্রক্রয়যোগ্য, যদিও সে জমি বসতবাড়ি হিসেবে ব্যবহৃত হয়"। ...মোঃ নুরুল ইসলাম =বনাম= সফুরুন্নেসা, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 290] ....View Full Judgment