Rules 14 & 36
|
SAT Act
Section 75, 146
State Acquisition Rules, 1951
Rules 17, 39
State Tenancy Rules, 1955
Rules 14 & 36
The Revenue Officers are not performing any judicial function under the
provisions of the SAT Act:
Provisions of Section 75 of the SAT Act and rule 39 of the State
Acquisition Rules, 1951 and rules 14 & 36 of the State Tenancy Rules, 1955
give the Revenue Officers the powers of a civil Court merely to the extent
of enforcing attendance of witnesses or of any person, having interest in
the estate, and production of documents for the purpose of conducting any
enquiry and, thus, not for adjudication upon a lis between the parties.
Our above view is reinforced by the provision of Section 146 of the SAT Act
and rule 17 of the State Acquisition Rules, 1951 inasmuch as from a plain
reading of the said Section 146 of the SAT Act and rule 17 of the State
Acquisition Rules, 1951, we find that the functions of the Revenue Officers
under Section 75 of the SAT Act and rule 39 of the State Acquisition Rules,
1951 and rules 14 & 36 of the State Tenancy Rules, 1955 are not sufficient
to brand them within the category of Court. ...Md. Safiqul Islam Vs.
Bangladesh & Ors., (Civil), 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 99
....View Full Judgment
|
Md. Safiqul Islam Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. |
1 SCOB [2015] HCD 99 |
Rule 17
|
SAT Act
Section 146
State Acquisition Rules, 1951
Rule 17
Absence of the finality in the orders of the Revenue Officers, reduces them
to the administrative functionaries only:
The Provision of Section 146 of the SAT Act as well as rule 17 of the
Rules, 1951 clearly indicate the absence of the finality in the orders of
the Revenue Officers, reducing them to the administrative functionaries
only under the Board of Land Administration and the Government. Thus, from
this point of view as well, the Revenue Officers are not performing any
judicial function under the provisions of the SAT Act. ...Md. Safiqul Islam
Vs. Bangladesh & Ors., (Civil), 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 99
If there is a case pending in a competent Court of law regarding any
dispute over any land property and on the same dispute, pending disposal of
the said case, a Revenue Officer is subsequently approached by any claimant
with a prayer to update a record-of-rights in the form of amendment or the
correction of the record-of-rights, the Revenue Officer should abstain from
proceeding with the mutation case. ...Md. Safiqul Islam Vs. Bangladesh &
Ors., (Civil), 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 99
Unless a Revenue authority is presented with a registered instrument of
amicable settlement or the contending parties of a mutation case agrees on
their respective shares, no Revenue Authority is competent to change the
record-of-rights by apportioning/allocating shares to the claimants of any
landed property. ...Md. Safiqul Islam Vs. Bangladesh & Ors., (Civil), 1
SCOB [2015] HCD 99
Revenue Officer must not proceed further when a civil suit is pending:
In dealing with the mutation proceedings the Revenue Officers’ duties are
only to record the names of the owners of the land upon examining the
relevant papers and documents, if the same are produced before them without
raising/taking any objection thereto. But the moment the Revenue Officer
would come to know, either through an enquiry conducted by him with the
assistance of the Tahshilder or any other staff of his office, or through
an application filed by a private party for mutation, that there are
disputes regarding the produced papers and documents and there are
contending claimants over any land and the matter is pending in the Court
for disposal, the concerned Revenue Officer must not proceed further with
regard to the said mutation case until the said civil suit is finally
disposed of. ...Md. Safiqul Islam Vs. Bangladesh & Ors., (Civil), 1 SCOB
[2015] HCD 99
....View Full Judgment
|
Md. Safiqul Islam Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. |
1 SCOB [2015] HCD 99 |
Rules 23 and 24
|
State Acquisition & Tenancy Rules, 1955
Revenue Officer, whether he constitutes a Court—His inquiry report lacks
finality and authoritativeness of a court as the Revenue officers do not
possess the power to decide the title to and the property rights in the
immovable property.
Abul Hossain (Md) vs State 55 DLR (AD) 125.
|
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
|
Government of Bangladesh -Vs- M. Anwar Hossain and others |
1 ALR (AD) 29 |
Rule 30, 31, 32, 42A and 44
|
The Tenancy Rules, 1955
Rule 30, 31, 32, 42A and 44
It is clear that fraudulent act had been committed in disposal of the
appeal Nos.1810/95, 1811/95, 1813/95, 1812/95, 1814/95 and 1889/95 under
rule 31 of the Tenancy Rules, 1955 and concerned authority i.e. Director
Land Records after holding enquiry passed the necessary orders, which is
within the ambit of rule 42A and 44 of the Tenancy Rules, 1955. Thus, in
exercising power under rule 42A and 44, the Director, Land Records did not
commit any illegality; rather he passed the same within his jurisdiction.
Thus, Appellate Division finds no substance in the submission of Mr. Hoque,
that the Director, Land Records had passed the order exceeding his
jurisdiction. The appeal is dismissed without any order as to cost.
.....Imam Sirajul Hoque =VS= Land Record and Survey Tejgaon, (Civil),
2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 152]
....View Full Judgment
|
Imam Sirajul Hoque =VS= Land Record and Survey Tejgaon |
12 LM (AD) 152 |
Rule 31, 42, 42A
|
State Acquisition and Tenancy Rules, 1955
Rule 31, 42, 42A:
Effect of misquotation or non-mentioning of a particular provision:
In the instant case, after disposal of the appeal under rule 31 of the
Rules, 1955 an application was filed before the Settlement Officer at Dhaka
mentioning rule 42A of the Rules, 1955 at the instance of the respondent
no. 5 praying for hearing of the four appeal cases or taking a decision
afresh as mentioned above. Rule 42A of the Rules, 1955 grants power to the
Revenue Officer with the additional designation of the Settlement Officer
to hear and dispose of any application filed alleging fraud. In the instant
case the application as has been filed by the respondent no. 5 mentioning
rule 42A is a misconceived one. The Revenue Officer after disposal of the
appeal under rule 31 may at any time before final publication of the
record-of-rights initiate a proceeding afresh at the stage he may direct.
That power of the Revenue Officer has been given under rule 42 of the
Rules, 1955. In the instant case, we hold that the application as has been
filed by the respondent no. 5 should not be treated as an application under
rule 42A of the Rules, 1955 rather it should be considered as an
application under rule 42 thereof. It is to be noted here that misquoting
of rule or non-mentioning of a particular section in the concerned
application does not preclude the Settlement Officer to act under the
applicable provision of the S.A.T. Act and Rules thereof for the purpose of
arriving at a correct decision with regard to the final publication of the
record-of-rights. ...Hossain Ali & ors Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 9
SCOB [2017] HCD 132
Record of Rights:
The record-of-rights neither creates nor destroys title. It is merely a
record of physical possession at the time when it is prepared. ...Hossain
Ali & ors Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD 132
....View Full Judgment
|
Hossain Ali & ors Vs. Bangladesh & ors |
9 SCOB [2017] HCD 132 |
Rule 31, 35 and 42A
|
State Acquisition and Tenancy Rules 1955
Rule 31, 35 and 42A r/w
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act
Section 144
The repeated hearing of appeals under Rule 31 or even under Rule 42 or 42A,
by the Revenue Officers after final publication of a record-of-rights is
without lawful authority, illegal and is of no legal effect–– Rule 42A
does not give any authority to rehear an appeal under rule 31 of the
Tenancy Rules, 1955 by the concerned Settlement Officer after publication
of the final record-ofrights, as the such publication is conclusive
evidence (rule 35) and thus, in the instant cases the Settlement Officer
has acted illegally and without jurisdiction in re-hearing the appeals
repeatedly. .....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 |
Rule 42
|
Jurisdiction of Settlement Officer:
The Settlement Officer appointed with the additional designation of
Assistant Settlement Officer may at any time before final publication of
the record-of-rights exercise his jurisdiction under rule, 42 of the Rules,
1955. ...Hossain Ali & ors Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] HCD
132
....View Full Judgment
|
Hossain Ali & ors Vs. Bangladesh & ors |
9 SCOB [2017] HCD 132 |
Rule 42
|
SAT Act, 1950
Section 145A
Tenancy Rules, 1955
Rule 42
It appears from the very record that, apparently, the said Settlement
Officer, vide order dated 10.07.2003, reversed the course of parent law
from its concluded stage to a lower stage. Not only that, the said
Settlement Officer also gave an additional leverage in favour of the
respondent no.4 to present its case again before another Appellate Officer
of same rank. This order has made several interferences into the normal
course to be taken or followed under SAT Act, 1950, namely:
(a) It did not allow final publication of City Khatian in the normal course
after disposal of appeals by the Appellate Officer
(b) It allowed the respondent No.4 to avoid the Land Survey Tribunals
constituted under Section 145A of the SAT Act, 1950. Rather, it allowed
respondent no.4 to avail of another forum under Rule 42 contrary to the
relevant provisions of parent law.
(c) It deprived the petitioners of their legal and legitimate expectation
and rights to have the concerned City Khatians finally published in their
names as owners in respect of the said lands.
(d) For all practical purposes, by this order, the Settlement Officer has
already expressed his view regarding merit of the case and as such left
nothing for the 2nd Appellate Officer to hear and decide the dispute.
(e) Pursuant to this order of the concerned Settlement Officer under Rule
42, the subsequent Appellate Officer has virtually set aside the order
passed by the First Appellate Officer, who is of equal rank like him.
While this Court has repeatedly held that, the delegatee of power cannot go
beyond the power of delegation, it appears that, there cannot be any better
example than this case that how a power, not permitted by parent law, may
be delegated and as to how a delegatee can exceed its limit of power given
by the parent law. Here, the delegatee, namely the concerned Settlement
Officer, has reversed the normal course of parent law and thereby sat over
the first appellate order like a higher authority, in particular when the
higher authority as provided by law against such order is the Land Survey
Tribunal, which is empowered by parent law to determine those issues as
raised by respondent no.4 after final publication of City Khatian. ...Md.
Nurul Islam & ors. Vs. Charge Officer and Appeal officer & ors., (Civil),
10 SCOB [2018] HCD 234
....View Full Judgment
|
Md. Nurul Islam & ors. Vs. Charge Officer and Appeal officer & ors. |
10 SCOB [2018] HCD 234 |
Rule 42A
|
What to be fulfilled to direct excision of a fraudulent entry:
The following criteria are to be fulfilled to direct excision of a
fraudulent entry. Firstly, there shall be an application or an official
report alleging fraudulent entry in the record-of-rights; secondly, the
application should be made or official report should be brought to the
Revenue Officer who holds the status of a Settlement Officer; thirdly, the
allegation should be brought or the official report should be made before
publication of the final report; fourthly, Revenue Officer shall consult
relevant records and also make necessary inquiry and, finally, upon hearing
both the contending sides, shall pass the order of excision, if he is
satisfied that the entry has been procured by fraud. Thus, in order to
ascertain as to whether there has been a fraudulent entry, once the first
four conditions are fulfilled, Revenue Officer shall be eligible to issue a
notice for hearing. ...Mainuddin Ahammed Vs Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 7
SCOB [2016] HCD 134
....View Full Judgment
|
Mainuddin Ahammed Vs Bangladesh & ors |
7 SCOB [2016] HCD 134 |
Rule 42A
|
Tenancy Rules
Rule 42A:
Under the provisions of Rule 42A of the Tenancy Rules, a Settlement Officer
becomes legally obliged to issue a notice to the applicant, whenever the
former receives an allegation of fraudulent entry in the record-of-rights
before its final publication and, in discharging the said legal duty, it is
incumbent upon the Settlement Officer to make a proper assessment through
hearing both the sides in an endeavour to find out as to whether the
allegation is vague or the same is genuine having been substantiated by
some specific evidence. Thereafter, following hearing the parties, if the
Revenue Officer makes any correction in the record-of-rights, which goes
against any party, in our view, only then the said aggrieved party may
approach this Court, for, this action of the Settlement Officer is not
appealable. ...Mainuddin Ahammed Vs Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 7 SCOB
[2016] HCD 134
....View Full Judgment
|
Mainuddin Ahammed Vs Bangladesh & ors |
7 SCOB [2016] HCD 134 |
Rule 42A
|
Tenancy Rules
Rule 42A:
When to invoke writ jurisdiction:
There is nothing to be aggrieved by the writ petitioner with the impugned
notice at this stage inasmuch as he has the opportunity to explain his
position by submitting papers and documents before the notice-issuing
authority who is competent to deal with the petitioner’s grievance and
upon examining the papers regarding title and possession as well as
record-of-rights, when the Settlement Officer would pass an order, or give
a decision, exercising the power under Rule 42A of the Tenancy Rules, at
that juncture, if the writ petitioner is unhappy with the said order or
decision, he would be competent to invoke writ jurisdiction. ...Mainuddin
Ahammed Vs Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 134
....View Full Judgment
|
Mainuddin Ahammed Vs Bangladesh & ors |
7 SCOB [2016] HCD 134 |
Rule 42
|
Nullity of Record of Rights:
We are in fact taken aback with surprise when we see that a government
official has been empowered by this Rule 42 to nullify the course of parent
law and send it back to an earlier stage for hearing afresh. The reason for
such surprise is, when an Act of parliament has provided some specified
forums for disposal of particular issues and has provided sequential steps
to be taken one after another before different forums up to the Appellate
Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, an official like a revenue
officer, appointed with the additional designation of Settlement Officer,
can nullify everything before final publication of record of rights.
When the government even does not have any power to nullify or reverse the
course of parent law, since such power has not been delegated to government
by the parent law, we are of the view that, even with the existence of Rule
42 empowering such revenue officer to nullify such course of parent law,
any such exercise of power by such revenue officer shall be nothing but a
nullity in the eye of law. ...Md. Nurul Islam & ors. Vs. Charge Officer and
Appeal officer & ors., (Civil), 10 SCOB [2018] HCD 234
It has to be borne in mind that, since S.A. and R.S. Khatians were prepared
long ago, such presumption will lose its weight with the passage of time.
On the other hand, though the respondent No. 4 did not raise objections as
regards alleged mistake in preparation of Mouza Maps of Lala Sharai Mouza
and Kafrul Mouza during the said two surveys, it is not debarred from
raising such objections in the subsequent survey. ...Md. Nurul Islam & ors.
Vs. Charge Officer and Appeal officer & ors., (Civil), 10 SCOB [2018] HCD
234
....View Full Judgment
|
Md. Nurul Islam & ors. Vs. Charge Officer and Appeal officer & ors. |
10 SCOB [2018] HCD 234 |
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
Rule 42A
Fraud was detected subsequently, Settlement Officer, has jurisdiction for
issuing notice and making for hearing of the parties to decide the
matter– It appears that the respondent Md Wais Mia got the land recorded
for the disputed land admittedly excepting the other heirs of Azimunnessa
through a registered deed which is a fraudulent deed with reasons thereof.
Since fraud was detected subsequently, Settlement Officer, has jurisdiction
for issuing notice and making for hearing of the parties to decide the
matter under Rule 42A of the Tenancy Rules, 1955. Thus, it is evident that
the impugned Judgment and order passed by the High Court Division suffers
from legal infirmity. Appellate Division finds apparent legal infirmity in
the impugned Judgment and order passed by the High Court Division calling
for interference by this Court. .....Rawson Ara Khatun =VS= Md Wais
Hossain, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 360]
....View Full Judgment
|
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 |