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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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