Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 3(17) |
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 |
Sections 5(1), 52, 61, 86A and 195(e) |
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 |
Section 22 |
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 |
Section—22(2) |
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 |
Section 26(G) and clause (1a) |
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).
|
Khanje Ali Sikder =VS= Hazi Mozaharuddin & others | 1 LM (AD) 51 |
Section 26F |
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 |
Section 26C |
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 |
Section 42 |
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act
|
DC, Gopalgonj =VS= Saleha Begum | 15 LM (AD) 387 |
Section 86 |
Surrender of tenancy in favour of land lord - Nature of proof required—
|
Gola Bewa (Most.) & others Vs. Md. Abdw Rashid & others | 4 MLR (AD) 420 |
Section 87 |
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 |
Section 87 |
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 |
Section 103B(5) |
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.
|
Bangladesh Railway, Dhaka -Vs.- Most. Monowara Begum and others | 13 ALR (AD) 135 |
Section 103(B)(5) |
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act
|
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Tenu Miah Tofadar | 14 LM (AD) 30 |
Section 103(B) |
Bengal Tenancy Act
|
Md. Abdul Hanif @ Abu Hanif =VS= Bhupen Nath | 16 LM (AD) 617 |
Section 103B |
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 |
Sections 161 and 167 |
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 |
Section 173 (4) |
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 | 6 ALR (AD) 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
|
Israil Kha & ors Vs. Syed Anwar Hossain & ors | 8 SCOB [2016] AD 136 | |
Declaration of title–– |
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act
|
DC, Gopalgonj =VS= Saleha Begum | 15 LM (AD) 387 |