Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD)
State Acquisition and Tenancy Rules 1955 / Tenancy Rules, 1955 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Rules 23 and 24 |
State Acquisition & Tenancy Rules, 1955
|
Abul Hossain (Md) vs State | 55 DLR (AD) 125 |
Rules 23(3) and 24(4) |
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 |
Rule 30, 31, 32, 42A and 44 |
The Tenancy Rules, 1955
|
Imam Sirajul Hoque =VS= Land Record and Survey Tejgaon | 12 LM (AD) 152 |
Rule 31, 35 and 42A |
State Acquisition and Tenancy Rules 1955
|
Bangladesh Textile Mills Corporation =VS= Nasrin Sultana | 15 LM (AD) 408 |
Section 42A |
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 |
Bangladesh Textile Mills Corporation =VS= Nasrin Sultana | 15 LM (AD) 408 |
Section 42A |
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 |
Md. Abdur Rashid =VS= A.B.M. Yousuf Abdullah | 15 LM (AD) 634 |
Rule 42A |
The Tenancy Rules, 1955
|
Rawson Ara Khatun =VS= Md Wais Hossain | 12 LM (AD) 360 |
Rule 42A |
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 |
Md. Abdur Rashid =VS= A.B.M. Yousuf Abdullah | 16 LM (AD) 557 |