WELCOME

A PRESENTATION ON LAND LAW

MD. Masum Ali & Ors. V
Laynur Begum & Ors.
PRESENTED BY:
Citation : 201812 ALR (AD) 62
NAME: TASFIA JANNAT
ROLL : 38
COURSE NAME : LAND LAW
COURSE CODE : 203
GROUP : 22
FACT OF THE CASE:

In this Appellate Division Case, respondent no.1, Laynur Begum had filed pre-emption case
no. 22 of 2002 in the court of assistant judge, Shahrasti, Chandpur under section 96 of the
state acquisition and tenancy act,1950 for pre-emption of the case land claiming herself to be
a co-sharer in the case land holding by virtue of a deed of gift made by her father-in-law on
23.11.1994.

The present petitioner, Masum Ali, was impleaded in the pre-emption application and later
was added as a co-preemptor accordingly.

On 31.01.2006 the trial court by its order allowed the application for pre-emption of the co
pre-emptor on the ground that he became a co-sharer prior to the original pre-emptor.
According to that, he alone was entitled to pre-empt the case land.
FACT OF THE CASE:

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the trial court the pre-emptor
filed miscellaneous Appeal no.7 of 2006 before the district judge and the court
allowed the application of the pre-emptor on the view that the co-preemptor
came before the court long after 3 years and therefore the land was not
necessary for him or had it been so he would have filed application for
pre-emption.

This decision was revised by High Court Division. A learned judge discharged
the rule hence this petition for leave to appeal.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:

1.Both the pre-emptor and the co-preemptor are co-sharers. So, whose right will
prevail?
2. Is the original pre-emptors becoming co-sharer by Heba is stronger or weaker than that of
the co-preemptor who became co-sharer by virtue of his purchase by Kabalas?
3. Whether the co-preemptors application for pre-emption be refused on the ground of his
being late?
4. Whether the right of pre-emption prevail on ground of necessity as the land is adjacent?
5. Whether a co- preemptor’s right be denied on the ground of other party’s necessity?
RULE OF LAW:

Section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act ,1950.

APPLICATION OF LAW:

The learned Advocate for the petitioner,Mr. Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan argued that the case land was adjacent to the
petitioner’s land and very much necessary for him. It was also argued by both parties that,

Acording to Section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950,

Nowhere in this act it is stipulated that the right of a co-sharer as a co-preemptor can
be denied or defeated if he comes late.

Also, there is nothing in this section that states to deny the right of pre-emption on the
ground of the decree of necessity.
JUDGEMENT:

According to the stated section the Appeallate Court and the High Court erred in law in refusing to
allow the prayer for pre-emption of the pre-emptor.

The judgement of this case was, the previous order and judgement of the trial court and appellate
court are set aside.
The prayers for pre-emption of the original pre-emptor and co-preemptor of the case land are allowed
in equal share.
The original pre-emptor shall be entitled to withdraw the money deposited by him in excess of his
proportion.
CONCLUSION:
Not giving leave in this matter was necessary because if leave is granted it may take another
decade to dispose of the appeal,but the ultimate result of the appeal be the same. This was
also the view of the court.

I think the judgement was satisfactory for both the parties as both of them gained something
and did not lose everything.
THANK YOU