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 land,

Land 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.

Government of Bangladesh Vs. Mrs. Anwara Huq & Ors. 14 BLT (AD)188

Law on Pre-emption

Muslim 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

Pre-emption under Mohammadan Law as “Hoq-sufa”

It 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.

Bangladesh Krishi Bank Vs Kazi Liakat Ali and Ors. 14 BLT (HCD)76.