P L D 1970 Dacca 472 (PLP)

K. M. Subhan for Petitioner. Siddique Ahmed Chowdhry for the Opposite‑Party No.

1. This Rule nisi was issued upon the opposite‑parties to show cause why the order of the learned Munsif, Second Court, Dinajpur dated 5‑4‑66 in Title Suit No. 114 of 1965 should not to set aside or such other or further order or orders made as to this Court may seem fit and proper. The petitioner Abdul Kadir Khan averred that the disputed C. S. Plot No 3382 recorded in Khatian No. 990 of Mouza Parbatipur belonged originally to Opposite‑Party No. 4 who 'happened to be a member of the minority community, but he left Pakistan for good with the Independence and thereafter the present petitioner has been in exclusive possession of the said holding and residing thereon by raising structures for over 12 years and thereby he has acquired an absolute right, title and interest over the property by adverse possession for statutory period. On 15‑7‑65 Opposite‑Party No. 2 at the instance of Opposite‑Parties Nos. 1 and 3 issued a notice upon the petitioner requiring him to vacate the said premises and deliver vacant possession thereof to the refugee Tehsildar of the Evacuee Management Committee and to pay a certain amount per compensation. The petitioner alleged that such action was arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and he instituted Title Suit No. 114 of 1965 against the opposite‑parties for declara tion of his title to and confirmation of possession therein. After the suit was instituted opposite‑parties Nos. 1, 2 and 3 made appearance and raised certain objections and thereafter the suit was finally fixed on 5‑4‑66 when the learned Munsif made the following order:‑ "Fixed date being declared holiday the suit is taken up this day. Both parties file hazira. Issues framed in presence of pleaders of both sides. To 27‑4‑66 for steps under Order 11‑12, C. P. C. and filing permission as defendant No. 4 is a member of the minority community." It is the latter portion of the order, that is, filing of a permission, obviously under section 6(2) of the East Pakistan Disturbed Persons (Rehabilitation) Ordinance, 1964, as defen dant No. 4 is a member of the minority community, which has aggrieved the present-petitioner. Hence this revisional application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. K. M. Subhan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Ordinance in question was to provide for the speedy rehabilitation of persons affected by the civil disturbance in January 1964 and for affording protec tion with regard to immovable properties of the minority community involved in the said disturbance and consequently this Ordinance has got no application in the present matter inasmuch as the Opposite‑Party No. 4 Seth Atalmal had migrated from Pakistan to India on the very date of the Independence, that is, more than 12 years hence and consequently the present case does not come within the mischief of the said Ordinance. I gave an anxious consideration to his view, I went through the Ordinance very carefully and I am unable to uphold his view. On a consideration and reading of the Ordinance very carefully it appears to me that the Ordinance intended to provide (1) for, the speedy rehabilitation of persons affected by the civil dis turbance in the Province of East Pakistan in January 1964 and (2) for the protection of the immovable property of the minority community. The "comma" appearing after the figures "1964" and the word "and" thereafter makes it clear that legislation intended to provide for two matters as has been definitely shown above and in my view the word "and" appearing after the' "comma" is disjunctive and not conjunctive. My such view finds support with the provisions of the legislation itself inasmuch as sections 2, 3 and 5 provide for speedy rehabilitation of persons affected by the civil disturbance in East Pakistan in January 1964 and section 4 and section 6(2) provide for the other matter, that is, for the protection of the immovable properties of the minority community. Mr. Subhan drew my attention to the case of Asgar Ali v. M. H. Ali (18 D L R 399). I went through the said reported case very carefully and I find that the Judges of the Division Bench who decided that case rather support my view inasmuch as it was observed by their Lordships as follows:‑‑ "The provisions of section 4 operate as a total bar to the transfer of any immovable property belonging to a member of the minority community unless it is accompanied by per mission of the relevant authority. The section has no reference at all to the civil disturbance in January 1964. The protection envisaged by the section is an extraordinary protection given to a member of the minority community in respect of his property." I am in full accord with such view and I would like to add that section 4 and section 6(2) of the Ordinance have got no reference at all to the civil disturbance in January 1964 and that provisions made in these two sections were made with a view to give protection to a member of the minority community in respect of his property situated anywhere in this Province Such protection is given to a member of the minority community who resides or previously resided in this Province, and it matters little whether the said person has left this Province and crossed the border for good. In such view of the matter I am inclined to hold that the Munsif was perfectly justified in directing the petitioner to produce necessary permission under subsection (2) of section 6 of the Ordinance from the competent authority inasmuch as the suit cannot proceed without such, permission. In the result the rule is discharged. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. A. E./S. A. H. Rule discharged.