High Court Upholds Pre-emption Case, Rules That Limitation Runs from Date of Knowledge When No Notice of Land Transfer Is Served: Full Judgment Published

Relevant Laws: Sections 89 and 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950, and Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Where no statutory notice is served regarding the transfer of land, the date on which the claimant becomes aware of the transfer is an important consideration in determining the limitation period for filing a case seeking pre-emption. If the applicant establishes, through reliable evidence, when they first learned of the transfer, that evidence must be considered in determining whether the case was filed within the prescribed period. On this basis, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh set aside an appellate court judgment that had dismissed a pre-emption case on the ground of limitation.

A single bench of the High Court Division, presided over by Justice Abdur Rahman, delivered the judgment on 3 September 2026 in Civil Revision No. 1467 of 2025, Md. Joynal Abedin v. Md. Amzed Hossain Biswas and others. The Court set aside the judgment dated 27 April 2025 of the Additional District Judge, Fifth Court, Jashore, and upheld the order dated 31 October 2022 of the Assistant Judge, Chowgachha, Jashore, allowing the pre-emption case. The full text of the judgment was published on the Supreme Court website on 28 October 2026.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Md. Joynal Abedin, claimed that he and his brothers were co-sharers in the disputed land. According to his contention, a portion of the land was transferred to another person by a deed dated 17 February 1987 without serving him any notice of the transaction.

The petitioner stated that he first learned of the transfer from a tenant on 5 November 1996. He subsequently obtained a certified copy of the deed on 11 November 1996 and filed the pre-emption case on 20 November 1996.

After examining the evidence, the trial court allowed the pre-emption application. However, the appellate court held that the case had been filed more than eight years after the transfer and that the petitioner had failed to establish the date on which he learned of the transaction. Accordingly, it dismissed the case as barred by limitation.

The petitioner then challenged the appellate court's decision before the High Court Division through a civil revision.

Observations of the High Court

The High Court observed that the appellate court had failed to properly reassess the evidence independently when reversing the trial court's decision. The judgment also reflected a failure to consider material evidence and important findings recorded by the trial court.

The Court noted that, where the required notice under Section 89 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950, has not been served, the date on which the pre-emptor learns of the transfer becomes an important consideration in determining limitation under Section 96 of the Act. In such circumstances, the applicant must establish the relevant facts through credible and reliable evidence.

The High Court further observed that the petitioner had claimed to have learned of the transfer from a tenant and had successfully discharged his initial burden of proof through the evidence on record. The Court also considered the subsequent collection of the certified copy of the deed, which enabled the petitioner to confirm the transaction.

The Court additionally observed that the preparation or publication of an R.S. record in the name of the opposite party while a pre-emption case is pending does not, by itself, conclusively establish that party's legal entitlement to the disputed land. The legal consequences must be determined in light of the outcome of the proceedings and the applicable law.

Grounds for Interference in Revisional Jurisdiction

The High Court clarified that, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it does not ordinarily function as an appellate court to reassess evidence merely because another view is possible.

However, interference is justified where a decision results from the misreading of evidence, failure to consider material evidence, or an error of law that causes a failure of justice.

In the present case, the High Court found that the appellate court had misread or overlooked relevant evidence and had committed errors in its application of the law. In contrast, the trial court had carefully examined the oral and documentary evidence before reaching its findings. The High Court therefore concluded that the appellate judgment warranted interference in its revisional jurisdiction.

Final Decision of the High Court

Ultimately, the High Court made the Rule absolute, set aside the appellate court's judgment and order dated 27 April 2025, and upheld the trial court's judgment and order dated 31 October 2022, which had allowed the pre-emption case.

The Court made no order as to costs. It also directed the Assistant Judge, Chowgachha, Jashore, to implement the earlier judgment and order as early as possible upon receipt of the High Court judgment, subject to the petitioner seeking appropriate legal remedies in accordance with law.

Case Reference: Md. Joynal Abedin v. Md. Amzed Hossain Biswas and others, Civil Revision No. 1467 of 2025.
Date of Judgment: 3 September 2026.
Court: High Court Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh.
Judge: Mr Justice Abdur Rahman.

Source: Full judgment of the High Court Division, published on 28 October 2026.

BD Law Post / Masum