The words ‘immoveable property’ occurring in section 5 of the Ordinance include both agricultural and non-agricultural properties. There is no scope for encroaching upon the domain of legislature by importing the words ‘rural area’ in section 5 and addition of such words will amount to legislation by the judiciary which is not at all permissible. .....S. N. Kabir =VS= Fatema Begum & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 401] ....View Full Judgment

The words ‘immoveable property’ occurring in section 5 of the Ordinance include both agricultural and non-agricultural properties. There is no scope for encroaching upon the domain of legislature by importing the words ‘rural area’ in section 5 and addition of such words will amount to legislation by the judiciary which is not at all permissible. …S. N. Kabir.vs. Fatema Begum & ors, (Civil), 3 SCOB [2015] AD 16 ....View Full Judgment

Restricts benami transaction—
Provision of section 5 of the Land Reforms Ordinance, 1984 clearly bars the acquisition purchase of immovable property in the benami of others and as such any evidence oral or documentary as to acquisition of title on the basis thereof shall not be admissible in any proceedings. Shah Alam (Md.) Vs. Md. Omar Farooq and others 12 MLR (2007) (AD) 268.

Dispute or appeal relating to non-agricultural
Government khas land shall be decided by the Land Reforms Board and not by the Land Appeal Board—
As provided under section 5 of the Land Reforms Ordinance, 1984 any dispute or appeal relating to settlement of non-agricultural government khas land shall be decided by the Land Reforms Board and not by the Land Appeal Board. The High Court Division having found the impugned order passed without jurisdiction and corum nonjudice declared the^ same as of no legal effect which the Appellate Division held perfectly justified. Ayen All Howlader Vs. Nazir Ahmed and others 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 225.

Gives protection to the owners of the homestead in the rural area from eviction—
When the owners lost their title in the disputed land pursuant to a pre­emption case as in the instant case, the petitioners are not entitled to the protection provided under section 6 of the Land Reforms Ordinance, 1984. Abdul Hai and another Vs. Chan Banu Bibi 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 140.