Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949
true that at present the suit land is situated within Gopalganj 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.
Nir Bala Das Vs. Ganesh Chandra Dhupi 7BLT (AD)-358
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.
of the nature of settlement as given to Abdul Hakim “Mirash Bandubasta” of the
suit land, followed by continuous possession over 12 years, by raising
constructions, such settlement, falls into one such class under Section 7(2) of
the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. The tenancy in question was created prior to
22.3.42 which continued on 20.10.49 when Act XXIII of 1949 came into force and
in view of Section 89A of the said Act, the plaintiffs accured an interest to
continue such possession as of right which is protected from eviction. The
interest of Abdul Hakim in the suit land in such tenancy has been transmitted
by inheritance to the plaintiffs on the death of Abdul Hakim under clause (II)
of Sub-section (5) of section 7.
Ramjan Mia &
Ors. Vs. Idu Mia & Ors. 10BLT(HCD)-229
Principle of waiver
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
preemptor the same did not affect her right of preemption.
Mil Siddiqur Rahman
Vs. Most Jinnatunnessa & Anr. (CM) 7BLT (AD)-28
pre-emptor is entitled to make the application for pre-emption within 4 months
from date of registration and not from the date of receipt of copy of sale
Harunur Rashid Vs.
Afroza Khanam & Ors. 9 BLT(HCD)-135
pre-emptor, his sister and brothers may be co-sharer in original S.A. Khantian
but not after separation of Jama in mutation case. They are no longer remained
co-sharers in the new mutation khatians, opened separately in favour of their
respective names. As such the pre-emptor was not entitled to pre-empt the case
Hafez Abdul Karim
Vs. Male Mohammad 8BLT(HCD)-144
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
Section 24 read with Section 85(2)
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
Section-24 and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section-99
in one single application for separate purchases by different sellers and
purchasers be maintainable.
trial court and the High Court Division on appeal allowed the respondents
application for pre emption—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. Kholilur
Rahman & Ors. Vs. Abdur Rahman Bhuiyan & Ors. 7BLT (AD)-268
it is well settled that for the purpose of pre-emption under section 24(1) of
Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act Co-sharership in the land is material. A co-sharer
in land becomes entitled to pre-empt under Section 24(1) of the Act if any
portion of such land is transferred to stranger.
Md. Shah Aim Vs.
Alhaj M.S. Shahifur Rahman & Ors. 11 BLT (HCD)-189.
Section-24(1) read with Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 Section-2(2)
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.
Chowdhury Vs. Abdul Karim & Ors. 8BLT(AD)-165
Section-24(1) read with State Acquisition and
Tenancy Act, 1950 Section-117
no escape from the irresistible conclusion that even if the land in the expression.
‘co-sharer in the land’ in Section 24(1) of the Act, 1949 is not synonymous to
a holding but conceiving of such land without reference to the word ‘co-sharer’
is neither feasible nor possible. And the word ‘co-sharer’ in the phrase
‘co-sharer in the land’ is the key to find whether the preemptor is entitled to
preempt. A final decree passed in a partition suit or amicable partition though
separates and divides the land for the purpose of possession but does not ipso
facto terminate co-ownership in such land till subdivision of the holding and
distribution of rents takes place only in accordance with law. Subdivision of a
holding and distribution of rents may also take place in a revenue survey
subsequent to the cadastral survey with or without the plot or plots divided
into different small plots. As stated above, such subdivision may also takes
place at the instance of one or more of the co-tenants of the holding in
accordance with the provisions of S. 117 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy
Act, 1950. Such subdivision always terminates the joint tenancy or more precisely
co-sharership in the land, no matter whether the land is subdivided or
separated or not and after such subdivision, the old co-owners of the holding
in such land cannot be deemed to still continue as co-sharer in the land within
the meaning of S.24(1) of the Act, 1949.
S. M. Nasirul Haque
Vs. Omar Faruque Chowdhury & Ors 10 BLT (HCD)-318.