Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh


Forest Act [XVI of 1927]
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 2, 4, 29 and 34

Notification declaring certain land as protected and reserved forest— Subsequent settlement not tenable in law—
In the instant case notification was published in the official Gazettes dated 12th January, 1934, 17th July 1937 and 13th April 1955 declaring the suit land as protected and then as reserved forest. Thereafter the Bhawal Court of Wards Estate had no authority to settle the suit land. The apex court found the settlement improbable and illegal in the face of inconsistencies of the claim of the plaintiffs with the records and accordingly allowed the appeal. Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Gazipur and others Vs. Abdur Rahman and others 14 MLR (2009) (AD) 147. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 4 and 20

In the Forest Act, 1927 there are provisions for filing objections against declaration of a reserve forest and after enquiry the Government is the final authority to constitute a forest. The plaintiffs having not challenged the notification under section 4 of the Forest Act and having failed to prove their claim of. settlement, it does not lie in their mouth to complain that there was no final notification under section 20 of the said Act. Md. Nurul Islam and others Vs Bangladesh and others, 17 BLD(AD)91 ....View Full Judgment

Section 4

Authority of the Government to acquire land for reserved forests—
The Government is the final authority to acquire land for reserve forests. Construction of a document is a mixed question of fact and law which can be gone into and the finding of the lower appellate court can well be reversed by the High Court Division by showing cogent grounds. Abu Musa being dead his heirs Md. Nurul Islam and others Vs. People's Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Forests. 1, MLR (1996) (AD) 355. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 12-14 and 20

read with
Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable property ordinance [II of 1982]
Section 11 —If the suit land is re-served forest the suit instituted by the respondents will be barred by law. There is no dispute that the suit land belonged to the predecessors of the respondents. In view of such admitted position, the onus lies upon the government to show that the suit land has been acquired by the government as reserved forest.
The Appellate Division held that the Forest Officer has power to exclude any land other than easement right and for exclusion of land for easement purpose and in this regard procedures have been provided in sections 12-14.
(a) the period fixed under section 6 for preferring claims has elapsed and all claims, if any, made under that section or section 9 have been disposed of by the Forest Settlement Officer;
(b) if any such claims have been made, the period limited by section 17 for appealing from the orders passed on such claims has elapsed, and all appeals (if any) presented within such period have been disposed of by the Divisional Commissioner; and
(c) all lands (if any) to be included in the proposed forest, which the Forest Settlement Officer has under section 11 elected to acquire under Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable property ordinance, 1982 (Act II of 1982) have become vested in the Government under section 11 of that Ordinance.
The Government shall publish a notification in the official Gazette, specifying definitely, according to boundary marks erected or otherwise, the limits of the for-est-which is to be reserved and declaring the same to be reserved from a date fixed by the notification.
(2) From the date so fixed such forest shall be deemed to be a reserved forest.
Government of Bangladesh and others: -Vs.- Md. Shawkat Hossain Aabdur Rahman: Md. Nayan Ali and others: (Civil) 11 ALR (AD) 126-129 ....View Full Judgment

Section 20

Abatement of legal proceedings against constitution of Attia Reserved Forest—
After the promulgation of the Attia Forest (Protection) Ordinance 1982 (Ord. No.XXXlII of 1982) there is no scope to challenge the validity of the Notification of 1972 under the Forest Act, 1927 constituting the said reserved Forest. All judgments, decrees or orders in respect of Attia Forest shall have no legal force and all suits, appeals and other legal proceedings challenging the constitution of the Attia Reserved Forest shall abate. The Notification of 1972 constituting the Attia Reserved Forest shall remain valid independent of the Ordinance of 1982. Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Baset Mia. 6 BLD (AD) 62. ....View Full Judgment

Sections 20

A plain reading of sec-tions 20 of the Forest Act shows that if any objection is filed under section 6 or section 9 and if any order is made by the Forest Settlement Officer the aggrieved person may prefer an appeal under section 17 and the appellate authority shall hear the claims and then the government shall publish a notification in the official gazette which shall be conclusive as reserved forest.
Government of Bangladesh and others: -Vs.- Md. Shawkat Hossain Aabdur Rahman: Md. Nayan Ali and others: (Civil) 11 ALR (AD) 126-129 ....View Full Judgment

Section 29(3)

It appears that the case land has been described as khash waste land and the said land has been acquired by the Government under section 29(3) of the Forest Act. Thus the said lands are protected with effect from the date of publication of Notification in the Gazette. Subsequently, the registered deed of sale of the writ-petitioners alleged to have been executed and registered in 1968 showing sale of land is an invalid document in the eye of law inasmuch as without delisting the suit land from the aforesaid notification dated 18.11.1961 published in the gazette on 30.11.1961 the same could not be transferred legally by any person to any other persons. Thus the sale deed in reference has no validity and the transfer has been made without lawful authority and has no legal effect.
Government of Bangladesh -Vs.- Laila Arjuman Banu 5 ALR (AD)2015(1) 38 ....View Full Judgment

Remedy against wrongful inclusion of lands—
There are adequate provisions for remedy against wrongful inclusion of lands in the notification constituting reserved forest. An aggrieved party may seek such remedy under the relevant law. When no such remedy is sought for as provided under the Forest Act 1927, the plaintiff can not get. any relief. Province of East Pakistan Vs. S.A. Khan. 40 DLR (AD) 202. ....View Full Judgment