Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (HCD)



State Acquisition and Tenancy Act [XXVIII of 1950]
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation Head Note Parties Name Reference/Citation
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