Pre-emption petition to be filled within stipulated time from the date of knowledge of deed registration
Apellate Division :
(Civil)
Surendra Kumar Sinha CJ
Nazmun Ara Sultana J
Syed Mahmud Hossain J
Hasan Foez Siddique J
Profullah Chandra Sarker and other
……………Petitioners
vs
Md Nasibuddin and others………
. ….. Respondents*
Judgment
March 1st, 2015.
State Acquisition & Tenancy Act (XXVIII of 1951)
Section 96
Registration Act (XVI of 1908)
Section 60
After execution of the deed, the pre-emptors filed the pre-emption case for getting the questioned land by way of pre-emption. Since the registration of the deed was not completed under section 60 of the Act, he withdrew the application for pre-emption. Thereafter, he filed second application for pre-emption after the deed was registered under section 60 of Act. In the application for pre-emption, the pre-emptors stated that they came to know about the fact of registration of the disputed deed under section 60 of the Act, and thereafter by adducing evidence, they proved their date of knowledge. Pre-emptors had filed their application for pre-emption within the stipulated time from the date of knowledge of the registration of the sale deed. .. …. (6)
Qumrunnesa Ratna, Advocate, instructed by Nurul Islam Bhuiya, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioners.
Khurshid Alam Khan, Advocate, instructed by Gias Uddin Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record-For the Respondents.
Judgment
Hasan Foez Siddique J: This Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8-9-2014 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 107 of 2000 reversing the judgment and order dated 20-5-1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rangpur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 47 of 1986 reversing those dated 29-5-1986 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Pirgonj in Miscellaneous Case No. 34 of 1985.
2. The relevant facts, for disposal of this petition, in short, are that the respondents as pre-emptors instituted the aforesaid Miscellaneous Case for getting the land under dispute by way of pre-emption under section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act stating that they are the contiguous land owners of the disputed plot. The vendor transferred the disputed land to the pre-emptee petitioner on 13-8-1973 who is a stranger purchaser. The pre-emptee petitioner contested the pre-emption case filing written objection contending, inter alia, that the application was barred by limitation.
3. The trial Court allowed the application for pre-emption. The pre-emptee petitioner pre- ferred appeal.
The appellate Court allowed the appeal holding that the application for preemption was barred by limitation. The preemptors filed Civil Revisional application in the High Court Division and obtained rule.
The High Court Division by the impugned judgment and order made the Rule absolute holding that the application was not barred by limitation. Then, the pre-emptee filed this petition for leave to appeal.
4. Mrs Qumrunnessa Ratna, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that earlier the pre-emptors instituted the pre-emption case No. 731 of 1973 against the impugned deed but the same was withdrawn since the same was filed at the pre-matured stage as deed, in question, was not registered under section 60 of the Registration Act at that time. Thereafter, the pre-emptor filed this pre-emption case on 30-1-1975 inasmuch as the deed was registered under section 60 of the Registration Act on 20-7-1974, that is, he did not file pre-emption within four months from the date of registration of the disputed deed, the High Court Division committed error of law in not holding that the application for pre-emption was barred by limitation.
5. Mr Khurshid Alam Khan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the pre-emptor respondents supporting the judgment of the High Court Division, submits that the application for pre-emption was not barred by limitation.
6. Admittedly after execution of the deed, the pre-emptors filed the pre-emption case No. 731 of 1973 for getting the questioned land by way of pre-emption. Since the registration of the deed was not completed under section 60 of the Registration Act, he withdrew the application for pre-emption. Thereafter, he filed second application for pre-emption on 30-1-1975 after the deed was registered under section 60 of the Registration Act on 20-7-1974. In the application for pre-emption, the pre-emptors stated that they came to know about the fact of registration of the disputed deed under section 60 of the Registration Act on 25-1-1975 and thereafter by adducing evidence, they proved their date of knowledge.
In such view of the matter, we do not find any wrong in the judgment and order of the High Court Division that the pre-emptors had filed their application for pre-emption within the stipulated time from the date of knowledge of the registration of the sale deed.
Accordingly, the leave petition is dismissed.
(Civil)
Surendra Kumar Sinha CJ
Nazmun Ara Sultana J
Syed Mahmud Hossain J
Hasan Foez Siddique J
Profullah Chandra Sarker and other
……………Petitioners
vs
Md Nasibuddin and others………
. ….. Respondents*
Judgment
March 1st, 2015.
State Acquisition & Tenancy Act (XXVIII of 1951)
Section 96
Registration Act (XVI of 1908)
Section 60
After execution of the deed, the pre-emptors filed the pre-emption case for getting the questioned land by way of pre-emption. Since the registration of the deed was not completed under section 60 of the Act, he withdrew the application for pre-emption. Thereafter, he filed second application for pre-emption after the deed was registered under section 60 of Act. In the application for pre-emption, the pre-emptors stated that they came to know about the fact of registration of the disputed deed under section 60 of the Act, and thereafter by adducing evidence, they proved their date of knowledge. Pre-emptors had filed their application for pre-emption within the stipulated time from the date of knowledge of the registration of the sale deed. .. …. (6)
Qumrunnesa Ratna, Advocate, instructed by Nurul Islam Bhuiya, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioners.
Khurshid Alam Khan, Advocate, instructed by Gias Uddin Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record-For the Respondents.
Judgment
Hasan Foez Siddique J: This Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8-9-2014 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 107 of 2000 reversing the judgment and order dated 20-5-1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Rangpur in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 47 of 1986 reversing those dated 29-5-1986 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Pirgonj in Miscellaneous Case No. 34 of 1985.
2. The relevant facts, for disposal of this petition, in short, are that the respondents as pre-emptors instituted the aforesaid Miscellaneous Case for getting the land under dispute by way of pre-emption under section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act stating that they are the contiguous land owners of the disputed plot. The vendor transferred the disputed land to the pre-emptee petitioner on 13-8-1973 who is a stranger purchaser. The pre-emptee petitioner contested the pre-emption case filing written objection contending, inter alia, that the application was barred by limitation.
3. The trial Court allowed the application for pre-emption. The pre-emptee petitioner pre- ferred appeal.
The appellate Court allowed the appeal holding that the application for preemption was barred by limitation. The preemptors filed Civil Revisional application in the High Court Division and obtained rule.
The High Court Division by the impugned judgment and order made the Rule absolute holding that the application was not barred by limitation. Then, the pre-emptee filed this petition for leave to appeal.
4. Mrs Qumrunnessa Ratna, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that earlier the pre-emptors instituted the pre-emption case No. 731 of 1973 against the impugned deed but the same was withdrawn since the same was filed at the pre-matured stage as deed, in question, was not registered under section 60 of the Registration Act at that time. Thereafter, the pre-emptor filed this pre-emption case on 30-1-1975 inasmuch as the deed was registered under section 60 of the Registration Act on 20-7-1974, that is, he did not file pre-emption within four months from the date of registration of the disputed deed, the High Court Division committed error of law in not holding that the application for pre-emption was barred by limitation.
5. Mr Khurshid Alam Khan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the pre-emptor respondents supporting the judgment of the High Court Division, submits that the application for pre-emption was not barred by limitation.
6. Admittedly after execution of the deed, the pre-emptors filed the pre-emption case No. 731 of 1973 for getting the questioned land by way of pre-emption. Since the registration of the deed was not completed under section 60 of the Registration Act, he withdrew the application for pre-emption. Thereafter, he filed second application for pre-emption on 30-1-1975 after the deed was registered under section 60 of the Registration Act on 20-7-1974. In the application for pre-emption, the pre-emptors stated that they came to know about the fact of registration of the disputed deed under section 60 of the Registration Act on 25-1-1975 and thereafter by adducing evidence, they proved their date of knowledge.
In such view of the matter, we do not find any wrong in the judgment and order of the High Court Division that the pre-emptors had filed their application for pre-emption within the stipulated time from the date of knowledge of the registration of the sale deed.
Accordingly, the leave petition is dismissed.