Summary

The pre-emptor, claiming to be a co-sharer, filed a pre-emption case under section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 in respect of 4 decimals of land sold by deed dated 10.03.2011 to the petitioner, whom he described as a stranger. The petitioner contended that the land was the vendor's homestead and not pre-emptable under section 96(16). The Assistant Judge, Ranisankail, dismissed the case, but the Joint District Judge, Thakurgaon, reversed that decision on appeal. The pre-emptee obtained a Rule in revision. The High Court Division framed the issue as whether the land was a homestead. It noted that the C.S. khatian recorded the land as danga but had been prepared more than 100 years earlier, so it could not show the nature of the land. The relevant record was the last khatian prepared immediately before the sale, which had not been proved. The Court set aside both decisions, remanded the case to allow further evidence, and directed disposal within six months.

Issues

1. Q1

   Whether the land sold was a homestead and therefore not pre-emptable under the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950.

2. Q2

   Whether the nature of the land could be determined from the C.S. khatian prepared more than 100 years earlier.

Key points

• The nature of land cannot be ascertained by relying on a C.S. khatian prepared more than 100 years before the sale.
• To determine whether pre-empted land is a homestead, the last khatian prepared immediately before the sale is the relevant record.
• Since that khatian was not proved at trial, the parties should be allowed to adduce further evidence on the nature of the land.
• The judgments of both courts below were set aside and the case was remanded to the trial Court, to be disposed of within six months.

Law considered

State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950, section 96State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950, section 96(16)Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, section 115(1)