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.

Benami purchase–– The plaintiff purchased the suit land in the ‘benami’ of the defendant in the year 1952 and since then he has been possessing the suit land and there did not arise any cause for declaration of the defendant as the ‘benamder’ of the plaintiff in respect of the suit land. Only when the defendant claimed ownership in the suit land the cause of action arose for the plaintiff to get the suit land in his name by declaring the defendant as his ‘benamder’. The plaintiff filed this suit within the statutory period of limitation after the cause of action arose. So, this suit is not barred by limitation. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division be set aside and the judgment and decree of the appellate court below be restored. ...Maseeh Ahmed =VS= Mosammat Asma Khatun, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 555] ....View Full Judgment

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.

Land Reforms Ordinance, 1984
On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, it appears that as per the Rules of preponderance of evidence, the contention of the plaintiff’s possession is heavy in weight but the learned District Judge on slipshod statement held that the joint possession of the plaintiff and the defendants without sifting the documents in entirety. The original documents are lying with the plaintiff and produced from the custody of the plaintiff and those were admitted as evidence without any objection from the defendants’ side. The burden of showing that the alleged transfer is banami transaction has not been discharged by the defendants’ side. Undisputedly, the father of the defendants in his lifetime did not take any legal action against the transaction nor he filed any suit for declaration that the plaintiff was his benamder. Considering the surrounding circumstances, the relationship between the parties and intention and subsequent conduct of Naybullah Khan, it is as clear as daylight that 94 years ago, Naybyllah Khan took settlement of the suit land for the benefit of his eldest son i.e the plaintiff for the purpose of the welfare of his son. .....Mahmud N. A. Khan & ors Vs. Md. Kamrul Islam Khan & ors, (Civil), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 165 ....View Full Judgment