Decided on March 12,1989

Serina Begum Appellant
Mofizul Islam Respondents


BADRUL HAIDER CHOWDHURY,J. - (1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 438 of 1983.
(2.) It is a pre-emption case. Pre-emption Miscellaneous Case No. 160 of 1974 was instituted under section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act in the Court of Munsif, 1st Court, Dhaka. Later it was transferred to the Court of Munsif, Gazipur and it was renumbered as Pre-emption Miscellaneous Case No. 109 of 1983. Pre-emption was sought with regard to .70 acres of land out of 3.22 acres and the pre-emptor deposited Taka 4000/- with compensation at the rate of 10% while filing the preemption case. The pre-emptees contended that the proportionate value of the pre-empted land would come to Tk. 8,680/- and since the deposit is short the application for pre-emption must fail.
(3.) It appears that on 16.11.83 the pre-emptor made an application before the trial Court for leave to deposit the balance consideration money with statutory compensation. This was objected to by the pre-emptees. The learned Munsif, however, allowed the application. Being aggrieved by this order the pre-emptee filed a Civil Revision and obtained the rule. It was contended that the application for preemption was filed with short deposit and as such it was an incompetent application. Facts may be noted Kabala under pre-emption is dated 8.4.74. Pre-emption case was filed on 2.5.74. Written objection was filed on 30.11.74. It was contended that the pre-emptor opposite party No. 1 had no opportunity in deposit the balance consideration with statutory compensation within four months of the dale of sale, because the petitioners themselves filed their written objection much later. It was contended before the learned Judge that the trial Court did not give the petitioners an opportunity of being heard nor did hold any enquiry as to the actual amount of the consideration money. The learned Single Judge considered section 96(3)(b) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act and noticed the circumstances when the Court may hold an enquiry after giving all the parties an opportunity of being heard for direction to deposit further sum if necessary within specified period. The learned Judge then observed: "In the present case the pre-emptee petitioners cannot really complain of not gelling an opportunity of being heard and of not holding any enquiry, because the pre-emptor opposite party No. 1 and the Court accepted the proportionate valuation of the land under pre-emption as objected to by the petitioners themselves and if an enquiry was made, the proportionate value could not have been raised beyond the amount slated by the petitioners in their written objection. Surely the petitioners cannot assail the impugned order as without jurisdiction. It was passed very much within jurisdiction. The absence of any opportunity to the petitioners to show cause and the absence of any enquiry have not prejudiced the petitioners at all because both the pre-emptor and the Court have accepted the amount as given in the petitioners' written objection." ;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.