Bargader or Adhiar—When acquires the status of a tenant—He acquires the status of a tenant if he is admitted as a tenant by the landlord in any document executed by him or if he has been held by a civil Court to be a tenant.
Shafiullah and others Vs. Sultan Ahmad Mir being dead his heirs; 6 BLD (AD) 70.

Applicability of the provision of Bengal Tenancy Act in respect of Patni tenures-A talukdar holds a tenure under a Zamindar, a Darpatnidar under a talukdar and so on. The same goes for a howladar and a Nim howladar and so on. The provision of Bengal Tenancy Act relating to tenures are, prima facie, applicable to Patni Laws. Bengal Tenancy Act cannot vary the relative rights of Zamindars and Patni talukdars as established by Regulation VIII of 1819 but if there are provisions in the Bengal Tenancy Act which are in the nature of supplementing the relationship without being in conflict with the Patni Laws, the provisions of Bengal Tenancy Act will apply in respect of Patni tenures.
Bangladesh vs Tobarak Ali Mia 43 DLR( AD) 130.

Occupancy right of tenancy when merged with superior interest—A person holding occupancy right in a land does not lose it by subsequently becoming jointly interested in the land as proprietor or permanent tenure holder
Shafiullah and others Vs. Sultan Ahmad Mir being his deal heirs; 6 BLD (AD) 70.

Merger—Whether occupancy raiyati holding merged with the tenure by purchase of the same by the co-sharer under-tenure holder—On account of purchase by co-sharer under-tenure-holder the raiyati holding did not lose its character of an occupancy raiyati holding—Subsequent purchasers acquired the same interest and not an under-tenure holding.
Mst. Noorjan Nessa Bewa and others Vs. Md. Mohsin Ali Talukder and others; 3 BLD (AD) 209.

The sale with a condition of re-conveyance being subsisting after commencement of Bengal Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1940 became complete usufructuary mortgage after expiry of 15 years from the date of execution of that instrument (i.e. the Kot-kabala).
The Appellate Division observed that it was argued that the transaction in question became complete sale on 18.06.1950 since the executant of that Kot-kabala did not fulfill the condition, this argument is not at all entertainable in view of the above quoted provisions of law. Long before 18.06.1950 the above quoted provision of law came into operation and as a result the said transaction in question (Kot-kabala) stood as a complete usufructuary mortgage with the expiry of 15 years by operation of law. .....Khanje Ali Sikder =VS= Hazi Mozaharuddin & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 51] ....View Full Judgment

Pre-emption under section 26F of the Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885)­ - Whether the same can be allowed in favour of the pre-emptor applicant who admittedly owns more than 100 bighas of land exceeding the land ceiling prescribed in PO No. 98 of 1972-The question of land holding limitation upto 100 bighas of land does not arise as the Munsifs order was passed in 1967 when there was no law limiting land holding to 100 bighas. Appeal dismissed.
Azizur Rahman vs Bhayetullah 40 DLR (AD) 224.

Oral gift by a Muslim—Whether such gift of agricultural land without a registered instrument valid—Completion of oral gift—It takes place as soon as .a declaration of gift by the donor and acceptance of the same by the donee are made and delivery of possession follows—This completion cannot be destroyed by the requirement of a registered instrument under section 26C of the B.T. Act.
Jabed Ali Vs. Aba Sheikh, being dead his heirs Md. Naimuddin and others; 3 BLD (AD) 1.

State Acquisition and Tenancy Act
Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 r/w
Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section 42
Declaration of title–– Mokararee (মোকররী) right is nothing but a right of collecting rent on behalf of the superior landlord, which was not a tenancy or raiyati right and that right has been acquired by the Government after promulgation of State Acquisition and Tenancy Act–– Mere possession of the plaintiffs is not enough to declare title of the plaintiff–– The trial Court dismissed the suit. The appellate court also affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. The plaintiffs then moved before the High Court Division by filing Civil Revision No.982 of 2000. Upon hearing, a single Bench of the High Court Division by the impugned judgment and order dated 03-03-2009 made the Rule absolute.
Appellate Division has perused the R.S. Khatian No. 171. It transpires that the name of Bala Miah has been mentioned in the column of ‘অত্র স্বত্বের বিবরণ ও দখলকার’, but in the column “অত্র স্বত্বের শ্রেণী এবং বিশেষ নিয়ম ও অনুষঙ্গ’ it has been mentioned ‘মধ্য স্বত্বাধীকারী চিরস্থায়ী মোকররী’ । In the Bengal Tenancy Act,1885 certain settlement and vernacular terms were commonly used and the term ‘Mokarari’ means a fixed lump rent which is not based on calculation. In view of the above, the Mokararee (মোকররী) right is nothing but a right of collecting rent on behalf of the superior landlord, which was not a tenancy or raiyati right and that right has been acquired by the Government after promulgation of State Acquisition and Tenancy Act.
The High Court Division without considering the said vital legal aspect most illegally decreed the suit finding the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land. The High Court Division failed to appreciate that mere possession of the plaintiffs is not enough to declare title of the plaintiff, when admittedly the S.A. Khatian has been prepared in the name of the Government as khas land. Moreover, the plaintiff did not claim title on the plea of adverse possession. .....DC, Gopalgonj =VS= Saleha Begum, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 387] ....View Full Judgment

Surrender of tenancy in favour of land lord - Nature of proof required—
Claim of surrender of tenancy by the C.S. recorded tenants in favour of the land lord and subsequent settlement thereof in favour of the defendants must be proved by documentary evidence or by certain circumstantial evidence of convincing nature.
Gola Bewa (Most.) & others Vs. Md. Abdw Rashid & others- 4, MLR (1999) (AD) 420.

Abandonment-The appellant shall have no case if he relies on the plaintiff's admission of the abandonment of the suit land in the last part of Poush, 1360 BS.
Afroz Rashid vs Fazlul Karim 40 DLR (AD) 79.

Landlord is entitled to treat the land in possession of the tenant as abandoned when the tenant ceased to pay rent thereof and which by service of notice under section 87 BT Act he can enter into land and take possession­. Tenant has a right of recovery of the land by filing Bengal Waqf Act-Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Dhaka (Managing Committee of the Recognised Non-Government Secondary Schools) Regulations-Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Jessore (Managing Committee of Recognised Non-Government Secondary School) Regulation a suit within 2 years from the date of the notice.
Malekha Khatun vs Md Abul Kashem 37 DLR (AD) 164.

Every entry in a record of right finally published shall be evidence of the matter referred to in such entry shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect.
The Appellate Division observed that it appears from the materials on record that the disputed land was recorded in the name of Bangladesh Railway. It is the positive case of the Railway that the Government acquired the said land for Railway and handed over possession of the same to the Railway. Accordingly, C.S. record of right was prepared in the name of Railway. From the C.S. khatian produced by the appellant it appears that the case land was recorded in khatian No. 16868 in the name of Eastern Bengol State Railway Division under Bharat Samrat. C.S. khatian has got presumptive value. According to section 103B(5) of the Bengal Tenancy Act every entry in a record of right finally published shall be evidence of the matter referred to in such entry shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect. The same has got a probative value. The Appellate Division does not find anything in the record, relying on which, it can be said that such presumption has been rebutted.
Bangladesh Railway, Dhaka -Vs.- Most. Monowara Begum and others (Civil) 13 ALR (AD) 135-141

State Acquisition and Tenancy Act
Section 144(A)
Bengal Tenancy Act (VIII of 1885)
Section 103(B)(5)
Presumption of correctness–– A finally published record of rights revised under Section 144(A) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act has a presumption of correctness and that presumption continues till it is otherwise rebutted by a reliable evidence. This proposition of law is well settled. The oldest record of rights being the cadastral survey prepared under section 103(B)(5) of the Bengal Tenancy Act (Act No. VIII of 1885) also got a high presumptive value as to correctness of entries therein as it has also been enjoined under section 144(A) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act. Of course this is a rebuttable peace of presumption, if it has been so rebutted by evidence. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Tenu Miah Tofadar, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 30] ....View Full Judgment

Bengal Tenancy Act
Section 103(B)
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act
Section 144A r/w
Code of Civil Procedure
Order 6 Rule 7 r/w
Registration Act
Section 17(2)(VI)
Declaration of title and confirmation of possession over the suit land— Every entry in the Khatians, as the case may be, shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect— Presumption of correctness the record— There is conflict between the CS and RS khatians the RS khatian will prevail over the former— Both the provisions as contemplated in Section 103(B) of the Bengal Tenancy Act (in respect of CS Khatian) and Section 144A of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act (in respect of RS Khatian) are rebuttable, that is to say, every entry in the Khatians, as the case may be, shall be presumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect. .....Md. Abdul Hanif @ Abu Hanif =VS= Bhupen Nath, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 617] ....View Full Judgment

In the Instant case, the lower appellate court, after a detailed discussion of the evidence of the parties came to the conclusion that after the auction sale of the raiyat interest of Salimuddin in 1939 there had been a change in the status and possession of the parties. Therefore the presumption of right, title and possession on the basis of C.S. Khatian did not hold good any more. [Para-9]
Taleb Ali Pramanik & Ors. Vs. Serajul Haque Mondal & Ors. 7 BLT(AD)-28

B.T. Act—Encumbrance—Sub-lease created by an under-raiyat having no occupancy right is not an in cumbrance and need not be annulled, but sub-lease created by a raiyat having occupancy right is an encumbrance and requires to be annulled under section 167 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.
Sunil Kumar Biswas Vs. Mohammad Idris and others; 1 BLD (AD) 367

The Appellate Division observed that in the suit neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.1 adduced any cogent evidence to show that they are the owners and they have right, title and interest over the suit property including R.S. plot No.712 measuring an area of 0.86. The High Court Division, however, considered the aspect of the law of evidence and held that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.1 could prove any right, title and interest in schedule-‘Ka’ in equal share in R.S. plot No.712. It is no body’s case that the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 have been possessing the land of RS plot No.712 measuring 0.86 decimals of land by way of adverse possession. Though the plaintiff claimed that prior to C.S. operation, Hari Charan Mistry and Somerta Tara were in possession of the suit land but during S.A. operation neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.1 claiming the schedule-‘Ka’ took any step to correct the record. On the contrary the defendant has expressed his ignorance about the suit land on the face of assertion of the plaintiff that the defendant No.1 is entitled to get 50% of the suit land. Though the plaintiff alleged to have been possessing 1/2 of the suit plot but could not show any basis of his entitlement therein. Accordingly Appeal is dismissed.
Birendra Nath Mondal -Vs-Dhirendra Nath Mondal and others(Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) 6 ALR (AD) 2015 (2)178

If an under-raiyat has been allowed to continue occupation after expiry of his term of lease, his tenancy can only be terminated in accordance with the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act. …Israil Kha & ors Vs. Syed Anwar Hossain & ors, (Civil), 8 SCOB [2016] AD 136

The plaintiffs did not take any step to get back the land of plot No.4 after expiry of the period of lease mentioned in the kabuliyat. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the under-raiyat, continued their possession in suit plot No.4 as lawful tenants under the plaintiffs by holding over and after acquisition of rent receiving interest, they became tenants directly under the Government. …Israil Kha & ors Vs. Syed Anwar Hossain & ors, (Civil), 8 SCOB [2016] AD 136 ....View Full Judgment

State Acquisition and Tenancy Act
Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 r/w
Specific Relief Act, 1877
Section 42
Declaration of title–– Mokararee (মোকররী) right is nothing but a right of collecting rent on behalf of the superior landlord, which was not a tenancy or raiyati right and that right has been acquired by the Government after promulgation of State Acquisition and Tenancy Act–– Mere possession of the plaintiffs is not enough to declare title of the plaintiff–– The trial Court dismissed the suit. The appellate court also affirmed the judgment of the trial Court. The plaintiffs then moved before the High Court Division by filing Civil Revision No.982 of 2000. Upon hearing, a single Bench of the High Court Division by the impugned judgment and order dated 03-03-2009 made the Rule absolute.
Appellate Division has perused the R.S. Khatian No. 171. It transpires that the name of Bala Miah has been mentioned in the column of ‘অত্র স্বত্বের বিবরণ ও দখলকার’, but in the column “অত্র স্বত্বের শ্রেণী এবং বিশেষ নিয়ম ও অনুষঙ্গ’ it has been mentioned ‘মধ্য স্বত্বাধীকারী চিরস্থায়ী মোকররী’ । In the Bengal Tenancy Act,1885 certain settlement and vernacular terms were commonly used and the term ‘Mokarari’ means a fixed lump rent which is not based on calculation. In view of the above, the Mokararee (মোকররী) right is nothing but a right of collecting rent on behalf of the superior landlord, which was not a tenancy or raiyati right and that right has been acquired by the Government after promulgation of State Acquisition and Tenancy Act.
The High Court Division without considering the said vital legal aspect most illegally decreed the suit finding the possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land. The High Court Division failed to appreciate that mere possession of the plaintiffs is not enough to declare title of the plaintiff, when admittedly the S.A. Khatian has been prepared in the name of the Government as khas land. Moreover, the plaintiff did not claim title on the plea of adverse possession. .....DC, Gopalgonj =VS= Saleha Begum, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 387] ....View Full Judgment