State Acquisition & Tenancy Rules, 1955
Revenue Officer, whether he constitutes a Court—His inquiry report lacks finality and authoritativeness of a court as the Revenue officers do not possess the power to decide the title to and the property rights in the immovable property. Abul Hossain (Md) vs State 55 DLR (AD) 125.

It cannot be denied that the mutation of record-of-rights requires enquiry, perusal of previous settlement records, collector's record and the annexed Register. It is not a mere routine work rather it requires examination of the records which may take time. The High Court Division should not have exercised its discretion before a decision is given by the Revenue Officer, the disputed facts cannot be decided as it requires assessment of evidence. The Revenue Officer was directed to dispose of the petition of the writ petitioners in 6(six) months.
Government of Bangladesh -Vs- M. Anwar Hossain and others 1 ALR (AD)29

The Tenancy Rules, 1955
Rule 30, 31, 32, 42A and 44
It is clear that fraudulent act had been committed in disposal of the appeal Nos.1810/95, 1811/95, 1813/95, 1812/95, 1814/95 and 1889/95 under rule 31 of the Tenancy Rules, 1955 and concerned authority i.e. Director Land Records after holding enquiry passed the necessary orders, which is within the ambit of rule 42A and 44 of the Tenancy Rules, 1955. Thus, in exercising power under rule 42A and 44, the Director, Land Records did not commit any illegality; rather he passed the same within his jurisdiction. Thus, Appellate Division finds no substance in the submission of Mr. Hoque, that the Director, Land Records had passed the order exceeding his jurisdiction. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to cost. .....Imam Sirajul Hoque =VS= Land Record and Survey Tejgaon, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 152] ....View Full Judgment

State Acquisition and Tenancy Rules 1955
Rule 31, 35 and 42A r/w
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act
Section 144
The repeated hearing of appeals under Rule 31 or even under Rule 42 or 42A, by the Revenue Officers after final publication of a record-of-rights is without lawful authority, illegal and is of no legal effect–– Rule 42A does not give any authority to rehear an appeal under rule 31 of the Tenancy Rules, 1955 by the concerned Settlement Officer after publication of the final record-ofrights, as the such publication is conclusive evidence (rule 35) and thus, in the instant cases the Settlement Officer has acted illegally and without jurisdiction in re-hearing the appeals repeatedly. .....Bangladesh Textile Mills Corporation =VS= Nasrin Sultana, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 408] ....View Full Judgment

It is now well settled by this Division that if fraud has been done or found in recording-of-rights before final publication thereof the Revenue Officer can hear the matter a fresh after consulting the relevant records, making such inquiry necessary, if he deems and can give an opportunity of being heard of the parties. .....Bangladesh Textile Mills Corporation =VS= Nasrin Sultana, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 408] ....View Full Judgment

Correction of fraudulent entry before final publication of record-of-rights–– It appears that the Zonal Settlement Officer simply issued a notice directing the parties to appear before him with their respective papers. The writ petitioners, without appearing before the said Officer, directly filed the instant writ petition and obtained Rule which was finally made absolute. Since the law authorizes the Revenue officer with additional designation of settlement officer to hold inquiry to ascertain as to whether any fraud had been committed in procuring entry for preparation of the record-of-rights before final publication or not, we are of the view, that the said Office acted in its jurisdiction as conferred under the Rule 42A of the State Acquisition Rules, 1955 rightly, the High Court Division erred in law in interfering with the matter at the stage when the writ petitioners have ample opportunity to appear before the Zonal Settlement Officer and to produce documents to justify their claims. ––The judgment and order dated 16.10.2017 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.9876 of 2014 is hereby set aside. .....Md. Abdur Rashid =VS= A.B.M. Yousuf Abdullah, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 634] ....View Full Judgment

The Tenancy Rules, 1955
Rule 42A
Fraud was detected subsequently, Settlement Officer, has jurisdiction for issuing notice and making for hearing of the parties to decide the matter– It appears that the respondent Md Wais Mia got the land recorded for the disputed land admittedly excepting the other heirs of Azimunnessa through a registered deed which is a fraudulent deed with reasons thereof. Since fraud was detected subsequently, Settlement Officer, has jurisdiction for issuing notice and making for hearing of the parties to decide the matter under Rule 42A of the Tenancy Rules, 1955. Thus, it is evident that the impugned Judgment and order passed by the High Court Division suffers from legal infirmity. Appellate Division finds apparent legal infirmity in the impugned Judgment and order passed by the High Court Division calling for interference by this Court. .....Rawson Ara Khatun =VS= Md Wais Hossain, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 360] ....View Full Judgment

Zonal Settlement Officer issued a notice for holding inquiry under the provision of Rule 42A of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Rules, 1955 to ascertain as to whether any fraud has been committed in making entry of draft record-of-rights or not–– The law authorizes the Revenue officer with additional designation of settlement officer to hold inquiry to ascertain as to whether any fraud had been committed in procuring entry for preparation of the record-of-rights before final publication or not, we are of the view, that the said Office acted in its jurisdiction as conferred under the Rule 42A of the State Acquisition Rules, 1955 rightly, the High Court Division erred in law in interfering with the matter at the stage when the writ petitioners have ample opportunity to appear before the Zonal Settlement Officer and to produce documents to justify their claims. .....Md. Abdur Rashid =VS= A.B.M. Yousuf Abdullah, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 557] ....View Full Judgment