Sections 3, 20(2), (2a) (iii) and (6)
|
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act
Sections 3, 20(2), (2a) (iii) and (6)
Forest Act, 1927
Declaration of a particular land as forest under the Forest Act when not
necessary:
If a forest belonged to any Jaminder is acquired by the Government under
the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, declaration of the said land as
forest under the Forest Act is not necessary. The procedures to be followed
under the two Acts are quite different and they are independent of each
other, so far it relates to acquisition and declaration of forest. ...Tapan
Chowdhury & ors Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 49
....View Full Judgment
|
Tapan Chowdhury & ors Vs. Bangladesh & ors |
18 SCOB [2023] HCD 49 |
Section 3 (2)
|
Gazette Notification mentioning a particular land as forest would be
sufficient to determine the character of the land:
It thus appears that the Department of Forest under wrong notion proceeded
for further declaration of the same land as forest, which was already a
forest under the Jaminder and subsequently acquired as forest by the
Government and notified in the Gazette as forest under the State
Acquisition and Tenancy Act. The subsequent proceedings of the Forest
Department under whatever notion, or for whatever reasons will not
invalidate the earlier Gazette, nor will it create any right in favour of
any new claimant who did not challenge the earlier Gazette of 1952. If any
Gazette Notification mentioning a particular land as forest is published
under Section 3 (2) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, that would be
sufficient to determine the character of the land, unless the Gazette
notification is challenged and its correctness is rebutted. ...Tapan
Chowdhury & ors Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 49
....View Full Judgment
|
Tapan Chowdhury & ors Vs. Bangladesh & ors |
18 SCOB [2023] HCD 49 |
Section 92 (3)
|
Subsection (3) of Section 92 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
read with
rule 6, Subrules (2) and (3) of the Tenancy Rules, 1954 and
article 143 (1) (c) of the Constitution:
It prima-facie appears that the rightful owner of the suit property is
unavailable for a long period. Under the circumstances, the Deputy
Commissioner of Rajshahi is to commence an inquiry into whether any
rightful owner of the suit property is available or not. The Deputy
Commissioner will also follow the procedure as laid down in Subsection (3)
of Section 92 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 read with rule
6, Subrules (2) and (3) of the Tenancy Rules, 1954. If no rightful owner is
available, the suit land except the share of defendant number 6 (Haripada
Mahato) to the extent of 10 kathas in plot number 133 would vest in the
Government under Article 143 (1) (c) of the Constitution read with Section
92 (3) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act. .....Sufia Bewa and ors
Vs. Md. Aminul Islam and ors, (Civil), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 85
....View Full Judgment
|
Sufia Bewa and ors Vs. Md. Aminul Islam and ors |
19 SCOB [2024] HCD 85 |
rule 6, Subrules (2) and (3)
|
Subsection (3) of Section 92 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
read with
rule 6, Subrules (2) and (3) of the Tenancy Rules, 1954 and
article 143 (1) (c) of the Constitution:
It prima-facie appears that the rightful owner of the suit property is
unavailable for a long period. Under the circumstances, the Deputy
Commissioner of Rajshahi is to commence an inquiry into whether any
rightful owner of the suit property is available or not. The Deputy
Commissioner will also follow the procedure as laid down in Subsection (3)
of Section 92 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 read with rule
6, Subrules (2) and (3) of the Tenancy Rules, 1954. If no rightful owner is
available, the suit land except the share of defendant number 6 (Haripada
Mahato) to the extent of 10 kathas in plot number 133 would vest in the
Government under Article 143 (1) (c) of the Constitution read with Section
92 (3) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act. .....Sufia Bewa and ors
Vs. Md. Aminul Islam and ors, (Civil), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 85
....View Full Judgment
|
Sufia Bewa and ors Vs. Md. Aminul Islam and ors |
19 SCOB [2024] HCD 85 |
Sections 9 and 96 5 (1) (a)
|
A co-sharer by inheritance gets the first priority and he claims
pre-emption he will excluded all other claimants.
The High Court Division held that since the pre-emtor is a co-sharer by
inheritance in the suit land and pre-emtee was a stranger at the time of
transfer the case jote, there is no impediment under Section 96 to file the
pre-emtion case. Be that as it may, the intention of the legislature
accordingly to provisions of section 9 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy
Act, 1950 is very clear that to shut the door against all stranger, who
shall eneroch upon the ownership and possession of the real co-sharers and
where upon the real co-sharers can remain in enjoyment of their property
and others cannot interfere with their right and possession. In the instant
case admittedly the pre-emtee–petitioner was a stranger to the case jote.
Fazilatun Nessa Begum-Vs.-Dibdas Baidda alias Bairagi and others (Civil)
2019 ALR (HCD) Online 357
....View Full Judgment
|
Fazilatun Nessa Begum-Vs.-Dibdas Baidda alias Bairagi and others |
2019 ALR (HCD) Online 357 |
Section 75, 146
|
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 |
Section 86
|
Section 86 of the Act, 1950 clearly provides that a land that has diluvated
before the of P.O No. 135 of 1972 (i.e. after April 1956) or that will
diluvate in future shall vest in the Government. It follows that
irrespective of what ever title or right was acquired by Oli Ullah from the
D.S. recorded tenant Zinnat Ali by virtue of the unregistered patta dated
28.1.1931 (Exhibit-ka) and the three rent receipts for the years 1341 to
1362 D.S (Exhibit-Ga-series) it had extinguished as a result of diluvion
that took place some time before 1965 i.e. before the Diara Map. It follows
that the Government has acquired lawful right to lease out the land that
was earlier recorded as D.S. plot No.1657 and 1658. ...Md. Shajahan Bhuiyan
& ors Vs. Md. Nurul Alam & ors, (Civil), 4 SCOB [2015] HCD 52
....View Full Judgment
|
Md. Shajahan Bhuiyan & ors Vs. Md. Nurul Alam & ors |
4 SCOB [2015] HCD 52 |
Sections 89 and 96
|
In pre-emption case knowledge is of two kinds one is an initial knowledge
which is derived from some person or some individual person specifically
named in the pre-emption application and another knowledge is the confirmed
knowledge as derived from getting the certified copy of the disputed deed.
The High Court Division held that in the instant case the case land was
transferred on 13.10.1994, the pre-emptor got the initial knowledge about
the disputed transfer on 20.12.1994 and got the confirmed knowledge on
getting the certified copy of the disputed transfer and then filed the
instant case within the period of limitation. It is deemed prudent that in
pre-emption case where notice under Section 89 has not been served the
period of limitation would be counted only from the date of the know-ledge
as derived on getting the certified copy of the disputed transfer deed.
Fazilatun Nessa Begum-Vs.-Dibdas Baidda alias Bairagi and others (Civil)
2019 ALR (HCD) Online 357
....View Full Judgment
|
Fazilatun Nessa Begum-Vs.-Dibdas Baidda alias Bairagi and others |
2019 ALR (HCD) Online 357 |
Section 89
|
Where notice Section 89 of State Acquisition and Tenancy Act has not been
served the period of limitation for filing a pre-emption case will be
counted not from the initial knowledge, but from the confirmed knowledge as
is obtained only on getting the certified copy of the disputed deed.
The High Court Division held that In the present case the petitioner having
stated that he got the confirmed knowledge on getting certified copy of the
deed and in my opinion, when the certified copy of the disputed deed was
obtained he filed the case on 22.12.1994, the case has been filed well
within time and as such the case is not barred by limitation. Fazilatun
Nessa Begum-Vs.-Dibdas Baidda alias Bairagi and others (Civil) 2019 ALR
(HCD) Online 357
....View Full Judgment
|
Fazilatun Nessa Begum-Vs.-Dibdas Baidda alias Bairagi and others |
2019 ALR (HCD) Online 357 |
Section 89
|
No sale of a property, in which existence of co-sharers would be apparent
from the records, can be completed without serving notice upon the
co-sharers inasmuch as the law forbids the Registering Officer to register
a sale-deed without obtaining the notice together with the process-fees
from the seller and, thereafter, the Registering Officer is duty bound to
transmit the notice to the Revenue Officer who shall, then, serve the said
notice by registered post. And, in the light of use of the word ‘shall’
by the Legislature in each of the steps mentioned in Section 89 of the SAT
Act, the legal presumption is that all the State/Government functionaries
have performed their duties assigned under Section 89 of the SAT Act. If
any preemptor claims that s/he was never served with the notice under
Section 89 of the SAT Act, then, in turn, the preemptee shall have to prove
its service. However, for an effective adjudication of a preemption case,
the preemptor may either apply to the trial Court for production of the
‘dispatch book/register’ of the Registering Office and that of the
Revenue Office of the relevant dates or may apply to the Court for
examining the process-server of the Revenue Office to prove contrary to the
legal presumption. If the office/person responsible for serving notice
under Section 89 of the SAT Act proves before the Court the fact of serving
the said notice upon the preemptor, then, it would be for the notice
receiver, being a preemptor in a preemption case, to rebut before the trial
Court by any other ocular evidence with corroboration that he has never
received the notice under Section 89 of the SAT Act. .....Shaikh Ali Iman
Vs. Subodh Kumar Mondol & ors, (Civil), 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 116
....View Full Judgment
|
Shaikh Ali Iman Vs. Subodh Kumar Mondol & ors |
19 SCOB [2024] HCD 116 |
Sections 89 and 96
|
It is mandatory for the preemptor to satisfy the Court by adducing ocular
evidence that the preemptor has never received the notice under Section 89
of the SAT Act, against the legal presumption of due
accomplishment/performance by the Government officials; without first
proving as above, Section 96 of the SAT Act does not directly/automatically
entitle a preemptor to avail the second limitation of time i.e. ‘within
four months (currently two months) from the date of knowledge of
transfer’. .....Shaikh Ali Iman Vs. Subodh Kumar Mondol & ors, (Civil),
19 SCOB [2024] HCD 116
....View Full Judgment
|
Shaikh Ali Iman Vs. Subodh Kumar Mondol & ors |
19 SCOB [2024] HCD 116 |
Sections 89 and 96
|
The preemptor is at liberty to claim damage/compensation from the learned
Advocates whom he had engaged at the trial Court and the appellate Court:
The above ground of the lawyer’s mistake apparently sounds logical
inasmuch as it is a pertinent issue for consideration of this Court that
when a litigant, being not conversant with the legal provisions, engages a
lawyer and if because of the latter’s incompetency or negligence, the
litigant loses a legal right, whether this Court should interfere with the
impugned Judgment. Since it was the professional duty of the learned
Advocates for the preemptor at the trial Court and at the appellate Court
to apply for production of the ‘dispatch book’ of the Sub-Registry
Office as well as that of the Revenue Office, and because of not performing
their professional duty diligently, the preemptor has been deprived of
contesting and establishing a legal right, this Court is of the view that
the preemptor shall be at liberty to claim damage/compensation from the
learned Advocates whom he had engaged at the trial Court and the appellate
Court. .....Shaikh Ali Iman Vs. Subodh Kumar Mondol & ors, (Civil), 19 SCOB
[2024] HCD 116
....View Full Judgment
|
Shaikh Ali Iman Vs. Subodh Kumar Mondol & ors |
19 SCOB [2024] HCD 116 |
Sections 89 and 96
|
Guidelines for the learned Judges of the sub-ordinate judiciary for dealing
with the preemption cases under Section 96 of the SAT Act:
I find it to be the Constitutional as well as statutory duty of this Court,
to lay down some guidelines for the learned Judges of the sub-ordinate
judiciary for dealing with the preemption cases under Section 96 of the SAT
Act and, also, the necessary directions for the relevant
State-functionaries:
(1) In all the preemption cases under Section 96 of the SAT Act, if the
preemptor denies the fact of receiving notice under Section 89 of the SAT
Act, the learned Judges of the trial Court must frame an issue as to
whether or not notice under Section 89 of the SAT Act was served upon the
preemptor by the concerned Registering Officer and the Revenue Officer.
(2) The Registrar of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of
Bangladesh is directed to circulate this Judgment to all the learned
District Judges of the country with a direction upon them to arrange an
in-house meeting/workshop for 2(two) hours in order to apprise and
enlighten all the learned Judges about the guidelines set out hereinbefore
in this Judgment.
(3) The Secretary, Ministry of Land is directed to prepare a Form/format of
the Notice under sub-Sections (4) & (5) of Section 89 of the SAT Act to be
used by the Revenue Officers of Bangladesh as compliance with the
abovementioned provisions of Section 89 of the SAT Act. He is further
directed to disseminate the said notice to all the Upazillas of the country
with an Office Order that the Revenue Officers must serve notice under
Section 89 of the SAT Act immediately after being informed about the
transfer of a land by the Registering Officers, failure of which negative
remarks shall be recorded in their respective service books.
(4) The Inspector General of Registration under the Ministry of Law is
directed to circulate a gazetted notice to all the Registering Officers of
the country directing that they must comply with the provisions of
Sub-Sections (4) & (5) of Section 89 of the SAT Act without fail with a
consequential order that in case of failure to serve notice under the
provision of Section 89, they shall face disciplinary action for gross
negligence in performing their duties.
(5) The Secretary, Ministry of Land, the Registrar of the High Court
Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh and the Inspector General of
Registration are directed to file affidavits of compliance on or before
05/05/2021. .....Shaikh Ali Iman Vs. Subodh Kumar Mondol & ors, (Civil), 19
SCOB [2024] HCD 116
....View Full Judgment
|
Shaikh Ali Iman Vs. Subodh Kumar Mondol & ors |
19 SCOB [2024] HCD 116 |
Sections 95 & 95A
|
Doctrine of past and closed transaction read with Sections 95 & 95A of the
State Acquisition & Tenancy Act, 1950;
In the present case the Plaintiffs grandfather sold the suit property by
registered safkabala deed dated 11.10.1963 and executed a deed of
re-conveyance on that date with a condition of repurchase of the same
within eight years period that is till 10.10.1971.The President’s Order
No.88 of 1972 came into effect on 03.08.1972 and following certain
amendments therein by P.O No. 136 of 1972 and the condition giving right of
repurchase having expired. The sale/transaction became past and closed
transaction and the plaintiff was not entitled to get relief on the ground
that the property was a mortgaged property. ...Feroza Begum & ors. Vs. Md.
Nannu Mollah & ors., (Civil), 14 SCOB [2020] HCD 47
....View Full Judgment
|
Feroza Begum & ors. Vs. Md. Nannu Mollah & ors. |
14 SCOB [2020] HCD 47 |
Section 96
|
The pre-emption application filed within time and no defect of parties in
the case and admittedly the pre-emptor is a co-sharer by purchase and it is
also found that the pre-empteepetitioners are also co-sharers by purchase.
But on perusal of the record it is found that none of the
pre-emptee-petitioners claimed pre-emption after receiving the summons
within 2 months of the statutory period as mentioned in sub-section 4 of
section 96 of Estate Acquisition and Tenancy Act. When an application has
been made under sub-section (1) any of the remaining co-sharer tenants
including the transferee, if one of them, and the tenants holding lands
contiguous to the land transferred may within the period referred to in
sub-section (1) or within two months of the date of service of notice of
the application under clause (b) of sub-section (3) which ever be earlier
apply to joint in the said application; any co-sharer tenant or tenant
holding land contiguous to the land transferred, who has not applied either
sub-section (1) or under this sub-section, shall not have any further right
to get pre-emption under this section. ...Abdur Rashid and ors Vs. Md.
Babul Mia & ors, (Civil), 2 SCOB [2015] HCD 41
....View Full Judgment
|
Abdur Rashid and ors Vs. Md. Babul Mia & ors |
2 SCOB [2015] HCD 41 |
Section 96 (10)
|
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
Sub-section 10 of section 96 And
Succession Act, 1925
Section 28:
Section 28 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, provides mode of computing
of degrees of kindred in the manner set forth in the table of kindred set
out in schedule 1. From the table of schedule 1, annexed with the counter
affidavit, it is evident that brother-in-law is not a relation within three
degrees by consanguinity. Pre-emptee opposite party no.1 being not a
relation within three degrees by consanguinity of the donor is not entitled
to get protection of Sub-section 10 of section 96 of the State Acquisition
and Tenancy Act. ...Sree Paresh Chandra Pramanik vs Md. Mokbul Hossain &
ors, (Civil), 7 SCOB [2016] HCD 64
....View Full Judgment
|
Sree Paresh Chandra Pramanik vs Md. Mokbul Hossain & ors |
7 SCOB [2016] HCD 64 |
Section 96
|
Registration Act, 1908
Section 60
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
Section 96
Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949
Section 24
If the right of pre-emption is waived by the conduct of the pre-emptors
before and after purchase, the pre-emption case may be dismissed:
The conduct of the pre-emptors before and after purchase amply proved that
the preemptor- petitioners waived their right of pre-emption and as such,
the pre-emption case was rightly dismissed by the trial Court. The
petitioners intentionally relinquished of their statutory right and thereby
waived the right of pre-emption. The Appellate Court assigning cogent
reason concurred with the finding of the trial Court; therefore, it does
not warrant for any interference by this Court. It is true that the right
of pre-emption accrues after the deed entered in the volume as per section
60 of the Registration Act, 1908, but if the right of pre-emption is waived
before and after registration, obviously the Court may turn down the prayer
of pre-emption; otherwise, the equitable principle of waiver, acquiescence
which operate as estoppels will be meaningless. Nothing is absolute in law;
therefore, it cannot be held absolutely that the pre-emption right shall
accrue only after registration of the deed and if it so, the equitable
principles of waiver and acquiescence shall be futile and fruitless.
...Most. Shamima Begum & anr Vs. Most. Rezuana Sultana & ors, (Civil), 18
SCOB [2023] HCD 284
....View Full Judgment
|
Most. Shamima Begum & anr Vs. Most. Rezuana Sultana & ors |
18 SCOB [2023] HCD 284 |
Section 96
|
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
Section 96
Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949
Section 24
Registration Act, 1908
Section 60
It is expected that the Government shall take necessary step to amend the
provision of section 24 in line with the latest amendment of section 96 of
the SAT Act, 1950 for the greater interest of the people of the country.
The following points may be considered by legislators:
(i) Only the co-sharer tenant by inheritance can file pre-emption case
under section 24 of the NAT Act.
(ii) Transfer by way of sale only be pre-emptible and the pre-emption case
has to file within two months from the date of registration as per section
60 of the Registration Act or if no notice is given under section 23 of the
NAT Act within two months from the date of knowledge.
(iii) The maximum period of filing pre-emption case shall not be more than
two years from the date of expiry of the registration of the sale deed.
(iv) The pre-emptor has to deposit consideration money along with 35% of
the compensation of consideration money and an amount of 10% annual
interest upon the amount of consideration money for the period from the
date of execution deed of sale and to the date of filing the application
for pre-emption.
(v) The remaining co-sharer tenants by inheritance may join in the original
application within two months from the date of service notice or within two
months from the date of knowledge of registration of the deed.
(vi) If pre-emption case is allowed, the pre-emptee has to execute a
registered sale deed within stipulated time failing which the Court shall
execute the registered deed and shall hand over the possession to the
pre-emptor.
(vii) Non-agricultural land or holding should be considered as synonym. If
the non-agricultural land is recorded in different khatians by survey
operation or by mutation proceeding, the right of pre-emption shall be
ceased.
(viii) The ceiling of the agricultural or non-agricultural land should not
be more than twenty bighas in case of agricultural land and only five
bighas in case of non-agricultural land and accordingly, consequential
amendment has to be made in Bangladesh Land Hodling (Limitation) Order,
1972(PO 98 of 1972), the Land Reforms Ordinance, 1984(Ordinance No. X of
1984) and Section 90 of the SAT Act (Act XXVIII of 1951).
(ix) As per Rules of Business and Allocation of Business, it is the subject
of the Ministry of the Land, therefore, the Ministry of Land may take
necessary step to review the provisions of law relating to pre-emption as
set out under Section 24 of the NAT Act. ...Most. Shamima Begum & anr Vs.
Most. Rezuana Sultana & ors, (Civil), 18 SCOB [2023] HCD 284
....View Full Judgment
|
Most. Shamima Begum & anr Vs. Most. Rezuana Sultana & ors |
18 SCOB [2023] HCD 284 |
Section 143
|
Respondent nos. 7-9 were not legally allowed to approach the A/C Land for
correction of the record-of-rights at a time, when the same dispute and
grievance is being taken care of by a competent civil Court. ...Md. Safiqul
Islam Vs. Bangladesh & Ors., 1 SCOB [2015] HCD 99
....View Full Judgment
|
Md. Safiqul Islam Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. |
1 SCOB [2015] HCD 99 |
Section 144B
|
During conducting the revisional survey under Section 144 of the SAT Act,
till final record-of-rights are published, no suit lies in any civil Court
challenging any action or Order of the Settlement Officer as provided in
Section 144B of the SAT Act and, thus, the only option available for
respondent no. 12 was to take recourse to the provision of Rule 42A of the
Tenancy Rules. ...Mainuddin Ahammed Vs Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 7 SCOB
[2016] HCD 134
....View Full Judgment
|
Mainuddin Ahammed Vs Bangladesh & ors |
7 SCOB [2016] HCD 134 |
Section 144(7)
|
Any person feeling aggrieved by the order of the Board on account of some
glaring mistake or error apparent on the face the record or where it
requires interpretation of law in view of any legal complicacy can invoke
the review jurisdiction of the Full Board.
The impugned order dated 9.12.2003 (Annexure-D to the writ petition)
indicate that Full Board without discovery of new and important matter or
evidence or any mistake or error on the face of the record or showing any
sufficient ground granted review in setting aside the order passed by the
Board.
The High Court Division held that the impugned order dated 9.12.2003
(Annexure-D to the writ petition) indicate that Full Board without
discovery of new and important matter or evidence or any mistake or error
on the face of the record or showing any sufficient ground granted review
in setting aside the order passed by the Board. In such view of the matter,
we find that the Full Board exceeded its jurisdiction under the statute in
setting aside the order passed by the Board dated 29.8.1995 in Case No.
3-85 of 1984 (Appeal)-Dhaka (Annexure-C to the writ petition). From the
foregoing discussions and having regard to the factual circumstances of the
case, we are of the opinion that the order dated 9.12.2003 passed by the
Full Board of the Land Appeal Board in Case No. 3-108 of 1995 (Re-view)
Dhaka allowing the review and revising the decision passed by the Chairman,
Land Appeal Board dated 29.8.1995 in Case No. 3-85 of 1994 (Appeal) Dhaka
(Annexure-C) and allowing the Miscellaneous Case No. 19 of 1987 are without
lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Rule therefore, succeeds.
Khorsid Nayeem and others -Vs.- Land Appeal Board and others (Civil) 2019
ALR (HCD) Online 362
....View Full Judgment
|
Khorsid Nayeem and others -Vs.- Land Appeal Board and others |
2019 ALR (HCD) Online 362 |
Section 145A
|
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 |
Section 146
|
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 |