Alhaj Md. Harun-Ur Rashid Vs. Rashed Harun and others [4 LNJ (2015) 439]

Case No: Civil Revision No. 1066 of 2013

Judge: Sheikh Abdul Awal,

Court: High Court Division,,

Advocate: Mr. Syed Shahidur Rahman ,Mr. Moudud Ahmed,,

Citation: 4 LNJ (2015) 439

Case Year: 2015

Appellant: Alhaj Md. Harun-Ur Rashid

Respondent: Rashed Harun and others

Subject: Pre-emption,

Delivery Date: 2014-04-24


HIGH COURT DIVISION
(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)
 
Sheikh Abdul Awal, J
 
Judgment on
24.04.2014
}
}
}
}
}
Alhaj Md. Harun-Ur Rashid
. . . Petitioner
-Versus-
Rashed Harun and others
. . .Pre-emptor-opposite parties.
 
 
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 (XXVIII of 1951)
Section 96(1)
It is the requirement of law that the pre-emptor must be proved that he is a co- sharer to the case jote and his co-sharer ship in the disputed holding has not been ceased by adducing sufficient convincing evidence in order to preempt case land but in this case on going through the evidence both oral and documentary, I do not find any reason to hold that the pre-emptor has been succeeded to make out a clean case that  he is a co- sharer to the case jote and his  co-sharer ship in the disputed holding  has not been ceased. . . . (18)
 
Mr. Moudud Ahmed with
Mr. Shmiran Das Gopta and
Mr. Mohammd Motahar Hossain, Advocates
...For the petitioner

Mr. Syed Shahidur Rahman with
Mr. Md. Jahangir Alam, Advocates
.... For the opposite party No. 1.

Civil Revision No. 1066 of 2013

JUDGMENT
Sheikh Abdul Awal, J.
 
This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party No.1 to show cause as to why the judgment and order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Chittagong in Misc. (Pre-emption) Appeal No. 56 of 2010 allowing the appeal and setting-aside the judgment and order dated 24.02.2010 passed by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, 1st Court, Patiya, Chittagong in Pre-emption Misc. Case No.76 of 2005 disallowing the pre-emption should not be set aside.

The pre-emption case was filed on the averments that the pre-emptor is a co-sharer in the disputed holding by inheritance and as such he is entitled to pre-emption. The case was resisted by the pre-emptee petitioner on the ground that pre-emptee purchaser is not a stranger to the case jote inasmuch as he has many land surrounding the case land. It has been also contented that the pre-emptor-opposite party is not a co-sharer at all and as such the case is liable to be dismissed.

The pre-emptor-opposite party No.1, examined 3 witnesses including himself as P.W.1 and the pre-emptee petitioner examined 2 witnesses including herself as O.P.W.1 to prove their respective cases.

The Trial Court after closing of the evidence and hearing argument of the parties  by its  judgment and order dated 24.02.2010 disallowed the pre-emption on the ground that the pre-emptor could not prove that he is a co-sharer to the case jote.

The unsuccessful pre-emptor, thereupon, preferred Misc. Appeal No.56 of 2010 before the learned District Judge, Chittagong, which was eventually heard and disposed of by the Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Chittagong, who by the impugned judgment and order dated 13.02.2013 allowed the appeal and set-aside the judgment  of the trial Court on the finding that in the facts and circumstance of the case the trial Court below committed wrong in holding that the pre-emptor is not a co-sharer to the case jote and the instant revision application is directed against that judgment  and order dated 13.02.2013.

Mr. Moudud Ahmed, the learned Advocate appearing for the pre-emptee-petitioner submits that the impugned judgment  and order is not at all a proper judgment of reversal inasmuch as the Court of appeal below without adverting the material findings of the trial Court below abruptly arrived at a finding that the trial Court below  committed illegality in holding that  the pre-emptor is not a co-sharer to the case jote.  He next submits that the appellate court below committed illegality in not holding that pre-emptor having lost his co-sharer ship  in the holding by separating his joma through mutation and cannot apply for pre-emption.

Finally, Mr. Mouded Ahmed submits that  in this case the pre-emptee purchaser himself was examined as OPW-1, who in his evidence categorically stated that the pre-emptor is not a co-sharer to the case land and the pre-emptee purchaser is a co-sharer to the case holding  inasmuch as he has more land surrounding the case land though the Court of appeal below as last Court of fact without considering the evidence of OPWs and without adverting the material findings of the trial Court below most illegally set-aside the judgment of the trial Court below which resulted in the failure of justice. Drawing support for his submissions, the learned Advocate referred to a decision reported in 55 DLR 214.

Mr. Syed Shahidur Rahman, the learned Advocate appearing for the pre-emptor-opposite party No.1, on the other hand, supports the impugned judgment and order and contends that the learned Joint District Judge was perfectly justified in setting aside the judgment of the trail court  on the clear finding that pre-emptor is a co-sharer to the case jote and he is entitled to preempt the case land.

Drawing my attention to the evidence of  PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3,  the learned Advocate submits all of them categorically stated in their respective testimony that the pre-emptee-purchaser is stranger to the case land and the pre-emptor-opposite party  is a co-sharer to the case jote by inheritance.  He further submits that the Court of appeal below  on the facts of the case and on consideration of the legal position rightly passed the impugned judgment and order and as such the same should not be disturbed. Mr. Syed Shahidur Rahman to strengthen his submission has  relied on the decisions reported in 35 DLR(AD) 54 and 34 DLR 180.

I have considered the submissions of the  learned Advocates for both the sides and perused the revision application, deposition of witnesses, judgments of two Courts below and other materials on record.   The main point for consideration is, as already noticed, whether the Court of appeal below was right  in holding that the trial Court below committed wrong in disallowing the pre-emption on the finding the pre-emptor could not prove that he is a co-sharer to the case jote.

It appears that in this case pre-emptor himself was examined as PW-1, who in his cross-examination stated that:- বি, এস, ২১৩৩ ও ২১৩৯ নং খতিয়ানে আমার নাম নাইz বি, এস, রেকর্ডীয় মুস¹াফিজুর রহমান মারা যায়z তাদের ওয়ারিশ কয়জন জানিনাz কাঞ্চন মিয়াকে পক্ষ করেছি বি, এস, রেকর্ডীয় মরিয়ম খাতুন কে চিনি নাz নালিশী ভূমি বি, এস, ২১৩৩ ও ২১৩৯ খতিয়ানের ভূমিz ১ নং প্রতিপক্ষের দাখিলীz জবাব পড়ি নাইz ১ নং প্রতিপক্ষের নামে নালিশী জমি সম্পর্কে বি, এস, ৬৪৫ নং নামজারী খতিয়ান হয়েছে কিনা জানিনা

Pre-emptee-purchaser himself was examined as OPW-1, who in his deposition stated that:- নালিশী ভূমির চর্তুদিকে আমার জমিz ঐ ভূমি ২৩/১১/২০০২ ইং তারিখের ৭০২২ নং কবলা মুলে খরিদ করিz This witness also stated that:- নামজারী খতিয়ান মুলে জমা ভাগ করেছি প্রার্থীক আমার হোল্ডিং এ শরীক নহে

OPW-2, Md. Ali stated in his deposition that:- আমি প্রার্থীকে ও ১ নং প্রতিপক্ষকে চিনি. নালিশী ভূমির আশে পাশে সকল জমি ১ নং প্রতিপক্ষেরz নাঃ জমি ১ নং প্রতিপক্ষের জন্য আবশ্যকীয়. It appears from the “Exhibit No.Kha” that the pre-emptee-purchaser after purchasing the case land mutated his name.

From the evidence of PWS and OPWS, it is apparent  that in this case both the parties are claiming that they are co-sharer to the case jote.

Now, to cut shot the matter it will be useful to quote hereunder a few lines  from the judgment of the trial Court, which reads as follows:
“পর্যালোচনায় দেখা যায় প্রার্থীর অগ্রত্র্রয় আবেদনে তার পূর্ববর্তী মাওলানা হারুন ইসলামাবাদী আর, এস, রেকর্ডীয় স্বত্ববান ব্যক্তিগণ হতে না তাদের ওয়ারিশ হতে খরিদ পুর্বক স্বত্ববান ও দখলকার ছিলেন তা সুস্পষ্টভাবে উ~ল্লেখ করেননিz আর, এস, রেকর্ডীয় স্বত্ববান ব্যক্তিগণ কোনকোন ব্যক্তিকে স্বত্ববান ওয়ারিশ রেখে মৃত্যুবরণ করেনz উক্ত বিষয়েও সুস্পষ্ট বর্ণনা প্রার্থীর অগ্রত্র্রয় আবেদনে উল্লেখ নাইz নালিশী আশিয়া মৌজাসহ অত্র এলাকায় হাল বি,এস, জরীপে বি, এস, খতিয়ান চুড়া¿¹ ভাবে প্রচারিত হয়ে পৃথক জোত জমার সৃষ্টি হয়েছেz আইনের বিধান মতে অগ্রত্র্রয় আবেদন হাল জোত  জমার উপর নির্ভরশীল z নালিশী মোজায় নালিশী আর, এস, ১৪৪৩, আর এস ১৪২০ এবং আর, এস, ১৪৯০ নং খতিয়ানের ভুমি বাবদ কত নম্বর হাল বি, এস, খতিয়ান চুড়া¿¹ ভাবে প্রসºত ও প্রচারিত হয়েছে তা প্রার্থীর আবেদনে উল্লেখ করা হয়নিz হাল বি, এস, জরীপে কোন কোন ব্যক্তি শরীক প্রজা এবং প্রার্থী হাল বি, এস, খতিয়ানের ভ¤ুমতে শরীক প্রজা কিনা ইত্যাদি বক্তব্য প্রার্থীর অগ্রত্র্রয় আবেদনে সুস্পষ্ট ভাবে উল্লেখ নাইz প্রার্থী কতিপয় দলিল দাখিল করে নালিশী জোতের ভুমিতে শরীক প্রজা দাবী করলেও তার অগ্রত্র্রয় আবেদন হাল জোত জমা এবং উক্তজোত জমার শরীকান সম্পর্কে উপযুক্ত বর্ণনা সংযোজন  না করায় প্রার্থী নালিশী কবলার ভুমিতে শরীক প্রজা দাতার বিষয়ে সুম্পষ্ট ও খরচ ধারনা পাওয়া গেল নাz প্রার্থীর অগ্রত্র্রয় আবেদনের বক্তব্য অস্পষ্ট এবং দ্বার্থক মর্মে সাব্যস¹ হল” and, on this finding the Assistant Judge dismisses the pre-emption case.

This being the finding of fact based on assessment of the evidence on record. The  appellate court below in its turn without adverting this  material  findings of the trial Court  came to  a finding that: “বিজ্ঞ নিম্ন আদালতে প্রার্থীর শরিকদার না হওয়া সম্পর্কে যে সমস¹ বিষয়ে বিজ্ঞ নিম্ন আদালত এ্রটি বিচ্যুতির তথ্য উল্লেখ করিয়াছেন তাহা গ্রহনযোগ্য নহেz নিম্ন আদালতে দায়েরকৃত আরজী জবাবের এই সমস¹ ভুল এ্রটি মামলার গভীরে প্রবেশ করিলে উপেক্ষিত হইতে পারে” and, on this finding the learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Chittagong set-aside the judgment of the trial Court.

On consideration of the matter, I find no difficulty whatever in holding that   the trial Court had considered the material evidence in detail in coming to its finding on the point of co-sharership of the pre-emptor in the case holding, but the appellate court, without discussing the evidence had abruptly reversed the finding of fact arrived at by the trial court which is not a proper judgment of reversal.

It is the requirement of law that the pre-emptor must be proved that he is a co- sharer to the case jote and his  co-sharer ship in the disputed holding has not been ceased by adducing sufficient convincing  evidence  in order to preempt case land but in this case on going through the evidence both oral and documentary, I do not find any reason to hold that    the pre-emptor has been succeeded to make out a clean case that  he is a co- sharer to the case jote and his  co-sharer ship in the disputed holding  has not been ceased. My view is, therefore, that  the learned Joint District Judge seriously erred in law in passing the impugned judgment without properly applying his judicial mind into the facts and circumstances of the case and law bearing on the subject and the same has resulted in an error in the impugned decision occasioning failure of justice.

In the result, the Rule is made absolute. The impugned judgment and order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Chittagong in Misc. (Pre-emption) Appeal No. 56 of 2010 is set-aside. The order of stay granted earlier by this Court stands vacated.

In the result, the Rule is made absolute. The impugned judgment and order dated 13.02.2013 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 2nd Court, Chittagong in Misc. (Pre-emption) Appeal No. 56 of 2010 is set-aside. The order of stay granted earlier by this Court stands vacated.

Let a copy of this judgment along with the lower Court’s record be sent down at once.

Ed.