Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Section – 23 and section – 24 read with
Emergency Requisition of Property Act, 1948 Section -2 (III)
Whether the learned
Arbitrator was wrong in allowing 15% Statutory compansion on all items except
does not mean the land simpliciter, but also includes benefit arising out of
the land, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything
attached to the earth and in that state of the matter in assessing statutory
compensation @ 15% in respect of the acquired land the arbitrator has not
committed any error of law.
Bangladesh Vs. Mrs. Anwara Huq & Ors. 14 BLT (AD)188
Law on Pre-emption
Law —It appear that the pre-emptee No. 5 is the mother and pre-emptees No. 1-4
sons. The purchase was made by one kabala. There is no presumption of jointness
in the Muslim Law. The presumption under the Muslim Law is that the Muslim
families are separate. The purchase made by the mother and the sons are
independent purchases and accordingly the purchase made by the preemptee Nos.
1-4 who are strangers, is Preemptible excluding the purchase made by the mother
by the self same kabala. This will not amount to partial pre-emption.
Md. Korban Ali &
Ors A saint Khan & Ors. 11 BLT(HCD)-138
Law on Pre-emption
Mohammadan Law as “Hoq-sufa”
appears from the evidence that the witnesses who accompanied the plaintiff to
the suit land while he disclosed his Talab-i- Mowsibat accompanied him and went
to the Bank while he tendered money and demanded the suit land but in clear
language they did not tell anything about Talab-i-Mowsibat at the time of
second demand. From the aforesaid evidence it seems that although the witnesses
did not state in unequivocal language that the plaintiff disclosed his Talab-i
Mowsibat previous to his second demand but they have proved his first demand as
well as his second demand and I am in respectful agreement with the decisions
of Indian Jurisdiction as referred above in holding that if under these
circumstances a Talab-i-ishad is made subsequently, and there is no express
reference of Talab-i-Mowsibat, the right of preemption of the plaintiff is not
defended, as subsequent demand is superfluous, further, Hedaya observed in his
book Mohammadan Law at page 551 that no particu1ar form is necessary : what the
law requires is that the demand must be to that effect and no more.
Bank Vs Kazi Liakat Ali and Ors. 14 BLT (HCD)76.