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.
|
Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Gazipur and others Vs. Abdur Rahman and others |
14 MLR (AD) 147 |
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
|
Md. Nurul Islam and others Vs Bangladesh and others, |
17 BLD (AD) 91 |
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.
|
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 (AD) 355 |
Sections 12-14 and 20
|
Forest Act, 1927
Sections 12-14 and 20 r/w
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
|
Government of Bangladesh and others: -Vs.- Md. Shawkat Hossain Aabdur Rahman: Md. Nayan Ali and others |
11 ALR (AD) 126 |
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.
|
Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Baset Mia. |
6 BLD (AD) 62 |
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
|
Government of Bangladesh and others: -Vs.- Md. Shawkat Hossain Aabdur Rahman: Md. Nayan Ali and others |
11 ALR (AD) 126 |
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
|
Government of Bangladesh -Vs.- Laila Arjuman Banu |
5 ALR (AD) 38 |
|
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.
|
Province of East Pakistan Vs. S.A. Khan. |
40 DLR (AD) 202 |