Section 16 of the PDR Act refers to interest, costs and charge which are recoverable in respect of every certificate which has been filed under section 4 or section 6. In other words, these include the amounts which are leviable from time to time in respect of the certificate after it has been filed. It should be noted that upto the stage of filing of a certificate under section 4 or 6 whatever sums become due are entered in the certificate, and they are-
(i) actual amount due,
(ii) interest, if any, from the date when the amount becomes
due to the date of filing of the certificate (the inclusion of the interest shall be done by the Requiring Officer or the Department concerned), and amount of ad-valorem court-fees paid (this is in respect of certificate filed under section 6). Clause (a) of section 16 refers to interest leviable on the demands in the certificate calculated at the rate of 6 4/1 % from the date of signing of the certificate to the date of realization i.e., the actual recovery of the demands. ...Md. Shahin Ikbal Vs. General Certificate Officer & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 168 ....View Full Judgment

“That they were jointly recoverable and its recover by suit is not barred by Law’. Omission of these words does not affect validity of a certificate. Shafiqur Rahman Vs. Certificate Officer (1977) 29 DLR (SC) 234.

Issuance of certificate under section 4 of the Act itself on the basis of requisition signed by the Bank manager shall be conclusive proof that the amount specified therein is due to the Bank and further determination is excluded. Bangladesh Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprises and another 52 DLR (AD) 57.

Duty of the Certificate Officer:
Before starting Certificate Case, it is the duty of the Certificate Officer to see as to whether the requisition is filed in a prescribed form under section 5 of the PDR Act and whether the provision of section 6 of the PDR Act has been complied with. In this case, the Certificate Officer without any objective satisfaction and only on the basis of improperly filed requisition letter and without considering as to whether the entire outstanding dues as claimed by the respondent-Bank is actually due at the relevant time, the Certificate Officer started certificate proceeding. Prescribed Form means the forms appended in the PDR Act. The Schedule-II, Rule 84 prescribes the various forms. Form No. 1 clearly spells out that the Certificate Officer has to give certificate that the amount stated in the requisition letter is recoverable and is recovered by suit is not barred by law. ...Md. Shahin Ikbal Vs. General Certificate Officer & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 168 ....View Full Judgment

It is true that a certificate tantamounts to decree. It cannot be denied that the Certificate Officer’s position is like an Executing Court for enforcing the decree of the Civil Court. ...Md. Shahin Ikbal Vs. General Certificate Officer & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 168 ....View Full Judgment

Interest should be imposed as per law:
It cannot be denied that during the pendency of the execution case, the lender Bank or FIs may impose interest, but that interest should be as per law. But the interest, costs and other incidental expenses incurred during the execution proceeding is the discretion of the presiding officer, who presides over certificate proceedings and such discretion has also to be exercised judiciously, carefully, cautiously and not whimsically. ...Md. Shahin Ikbal Vs. General Certificate Officer & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 168 ....View Full Judgment

Action under section 7 of the Public Demand Recovery Act can only be taken against a certificate debtor and not one who is not already a certificate debtor. Kumudini Welfare Trust Vs. Pakistan (1960) 12 DLR (SC) 17.

—Consequences following from service of notice under section 7.
On the service of notice under section 7 the consequences following from it are first: any private transfer of any immovable property in the district where certificate is filed is void, and secondly, the certificate dues become a charge upon the immovable property of certificate-debtor throughout the country. Ibid.
—Sections 7-10. Any variation from the prescribed form would not be fatal in a certificate issued under the Bengal Public Demands Recovery Act for realisation of certificate dues. Shafiqur Rahman Vs. Certificate Officer (1977) 29 DLR (SC) 233.

—Requirements to comply with the provisions embodied in sections 7, 8, 9, &10.
It is necessary to refer to the sections mentioned above namely, 7.8, 9 and 10. By section 7 when certain public demands were in arrears, the Collector of the district was to make under his hand a certificate (in the Form 2 given in the said Act) for the amount of such arrears remaining unpaid and was to cause the same to be filed in his office. By section 8 such certificate should, as regards the remedies for enforcing the same, have the force and effect of a decree of a civil court. Under section 10 such certificate having been filed in the office of the Collector, he has to issue to the Judgment- debtors a copy of such certificate and a notice in form No. 4 as given in the Act, and such certificate from the time it was served would bind all the immovable properties of the debtor if it has been attached under section 274 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Old). Such certificate u/s 19 of the Act is to be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code as a demand for money. Shafiqur Rahman Vs. Certificate Officer (1977) 29 DLR (SC) 234.

A memo of delivery of possession plays a vital role in the possession of a fishery.
The appellant as well could not prove that the respondent No.1 was in possession of the disputed fishery for later period beyond the lease period and in the absence of material on record could be drawn for the alleged possession simply because it was in possession of the fishery in question in the former period. the appellant could not show any memo. of delivery of possession showing that the possession of the fishery in question for the relevant period was handed over or they were ever in possession for which they are liable to pay the salami for the period.
Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Moulavi Bazar and others. -Vs.-Pirpur Fishermen's Co-operative Society Limited. 4 ALR (AD) 2014 (2) 213

Boynama is not genuine and tainted by fraud–– Appellate Division is not in a position to interfere with those findings of fact as has been taken by the appellate Court below being the last Court of fact since there is no room for non-consideration and mis-appreciation of fact. Moreover, there is no assertion in the pleading of the defendants to the effect that Niranjon was ever served with the notice under section 7 and rule 47 of the PDR Act and Rules respectively. We have seen that the plaintiffs are the heirs of C.S. tenant and the defendant-petitioner claimed to have purchased the suit land through auction purchased, so the defendants are to prove the fact of auction sale and we find no anomaly in fixation of onus as has been done by the appellate Court below. The schedule of the certified copy of boynama shows some interpolations and insertion of some plots which goes to show that the said boynama is not genuine and tainted by means of fraud. This Division does not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, which in our view does not call for any interference. ...Noor Islam Mir(Md.) =VS= Gonopoti Mistry, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 463] ....View Full Judgment

Where an assessee transfers the property in respect of which dues are charged, proper course for the authority to adopt is to attach the property itself—The only Acton which could properly be taken by the Income-Tax authorities for recovery the income-tax dues was to take out attachment the properties in this particular case on the basis they vested, in the àssessee R.P. and, thereupon, should have been open to the Trust to make an objection before the certificate-officer and thereby making it possible to obtain a resolution of the question, arising in this matter in accordance with I jurisdiction provided by the law. Kumudini Welfare Trust Vs. Pakistan (1960) 12 DLR (SC) 17.

The legislature as a policy decision made the changes in the law for quick recovery of the loan. Thus section 10A of the Act which provides for a special procedure relating to recovery of dues cannot be said to be arbitrary and illegal. Bangladesh Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprise and another 50 DLR (AD) 194.

The High Court Division wrongly held that section 10A of the Act provides arbitrary power without a provision for hearing. It is the policy of .the legislature to make an enactment to that effect. It cannot be said that the law is bad because it is not in consonance with the principle of natural justice and it is harsh and arbitrary. Bangladesh Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprise and another 50 DLR (AD) 194.

On a reference to other provisions of the Act, it is found that all the defaulting borrowers of Krishi Bank are entitled to equal protection of law provided by the Act by way of appeal, review and revision and as such the learned Judges wrongly held that section 10A offends Articles 27 and 31 of the Constitution. Bangladesh Krishi Bank vs Meghna Enterprise and another 50 DLR (AD) 194

Issue of a warrant—Issue of a distress warrant in advance against a certificate-debtor is permissible only in relation to movable property under the proviso to section 13 of the Act which provides for attachment of the whole or any part of any movable property belonging to the certificate-debtor. Kumudini Welfare Trust Vs. Pakistan (1950) 12 DLR (SC) 17.

By and large after filing the Certificate Case, the calculation of interest has to be made in accordance with section 16 of the PDR Act. If the contention of the respondent-Bank is accepted that the interest and charges are recoverable on the certificate amount upto the date of realization as per the mandate of section 16 of the PDR Act, then it would be safely concluded that the interest imposed during the pendency of the Certificate Case was also unlawful and unjustified. ...Md. Shahin Ikbal Vs. General Certificate Officer & ors, (Civil), 17 SCOB [2023] HCD 168 ....View Full Judgment

Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913
Section 19(3)
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 123(3) r/w 148(3) & 72(3)
It is well settled that the legal fiction must be extended to its logical conclusion and at the same time it should be construed strictly. The High Court Division in the impugned judgment observed that a deeming clause in the Constitution, has to be interpreted taking into consideration of various factors depending on the backdrop due to which the same was incorporated, legislative intent for incorporation of such clause vis a vis the manner of application of such deeming clause. Appellate Division endorses the above observation of the High court Division. .....Md. Taherul Islam =VS= Speaker, Bangladesh Jatiya Sangsad, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 500] ....View Full Judgment

Defendant without title was in possession of the land sold in auction—Plaintiffs purchase of the land in certificate sale—Effect.
The question before the High Court was what title was acquired by the plaintiff in the certificate sale. And having found that the defendant was on the land without any title, the High. Court was in error in going to the question of title acquired by the plaintiff u/s 20 of the PDR Act, because defendant’s claim of title through the certificate- debtor had failed. But the defendant being in possession, the question to be determined is, whether plaintiff, has a better title to recover possession from him. Golam Hafiz Vs. Khadem Ali (1977)29 DLR (SC) 312.

Without preferring appeal to the DC (Revenue) and without observing all the formalities to the Revenue Court, the plaintiffs filed the present suit which is clearly barred under section 36 of the PDR Act–– Appellate Division is of the opinion that the plaintiffs have hopelessly failed to prove their possession over the suit land. The appellate Court as final Court of fact came to clear finding that the defendant got possession through Court which was affirmed by the High Court Division. In view of the fact as stated above, the suit itself is not maintainable without praying for recovery of khas possession.
In a suit for permanent injunction with regard to a disputed landed property the relief is available to a person who is in possession. The Court may enquire incidentally into the respective claims of the parties to the suit for determining whether the plaintiff is in possession of the disputed property and entitled to the specific relief of permanent injunction.
The Single Judge of High Court Division also held the view that there is no misreading and non-consideration on material particulars and there is no misappreciation of evidence in the judgment passed by the lower Appellate Court who rightly and legally reversed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and as such the impugned judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. In course of discharging the Rule, the learned Judge of the Single Bench of the High Court Division was of the opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the finding of the appellate Court and accordingly there is no merit in the Rule. ...Shamsun Nahar =VS= Sirajul Islam, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 469] ....View Full Judgment

Import of section 36 explained—Effect of non-service u/s 7.
The true import of section 36 is that the sale in a certificate proceeding for non service of notice under section 7 is valid against the whole world for all times and as against the certificate- debtor after a period of one year from the date of delivery of property to the purchaser, if no proceeding for setting aside the sale has been started in the meanwhile.
The position is two-fold; such sale is valid as against the whole world, except the certificate- debtor it is voidable for a limited period, and valid for all times against the certificate- debtor after the prescribed period. The purchaser may claim a valid title against the certificate- debtor as well after the lapse of the period under section 36. Golam Hafez Vs. Khadem (1977) 29 DLR (SC) 313.

The plaintiff—respondents had moved the Circle Officer (Revenue) for setting aside the auction sale ignoring the provisions of section 36 of PDR Act. Fraud and collusion in holding auction sale were not proved.
If the auction sale stands, plaintiff respondents can no longer claim any right, title and interest in the disputed land. Alauddin Sardar vs Surendra Nath Falia 40 DLR (AD) 257.

Sentence of Fine: whether it is a Public Demand;
Unquestionably the sentence of fine passed by any Criminal Court is not a “public demand” within the meaning of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. As it is not a “public demand” within the meaning of the Public Demands Recovery Act, the question of realization of the fine amounts through initiation of the Certificate Case is out of the question. Such Certificate cases are an abuse of the process of law. ...Md. Golam Morshed Vs. Court of the Executive Magistrate & General Certificate Officer, Dhaka, & anr., (Civil), 14 SCOB [2020] HCD 101
The realization of any fine amount under any sentence of fine of any Criminal Court cannot be effected by resorting to the provisions of the Public Demands Recovery Act, 1913. ...Md. Golam Morshed Vs. Court of the Executive Magistrate & General Certificate Officer, Dhaka, & anr., (Civil), 14 SCOB [2020] HCD 101 ....View Full Judgment

A memo of delivery of possession plays a vital role in the possession of a fishery and in the absence of which the appellants cannot claim that respondent No.1 possessed the fishery and should pay for it– The writ-petitioner has asserted in its petition that no possession of the disputed fishery during relevant year under claim was delivered and nothing could be shown that the respondent was ever in possession of the fishery in question for the relevant period. The appellants though asserted that they were in possession of the fishery and accordingly claimed the amount for the lease period from 1396 to 1398 B.S. and for which no premium was paid but the same is contradicted in Annexure-E to the writ petition and accordingly, the appellants could not claim the said amount for the period in which they were not in possession of fishery in question. The appellant as well could not prove that the respondent No.1 was in possession of the disputed fishery for later period beyond the lease period and in the absence of material on record could be drawn for the alleged possession simply because it was in possession of the fishery in question in the former period. Moreover, the appellant could not show any memo. of delivery of possession showing that the possession of the fishery in question for the relevant period was handed over or they were ever in possession for which they are liable to pay the salami for the period. We find no substance in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. …ADC, Moulavi Bazar=VS=Pirpur Fishermen's Co-operative Society Ltd., (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 14] ....View Full Judgment