Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation, 1900

 

 

Regulations 4, 9 & 17-

Any aggrieved party against the decision of the Divisional Commissioner in civil matters can maintain an application under Article l 02 of the Constitution and not a revision petition under Section 115(1) CPC.

Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation and others vs Sheikh Abdul Jabbar 53 DLR 488

Regulation 4(1)-

The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable in the Chittagong Hill Tracts.

Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation and others vs Sheikh Abdul Jabbar 53 DLR 488

Regulation 4(1)-

The Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation, which is a special law and since there is specific bar, the procedures in Civil Procedure Code will not be applicable.

Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation and others vs Sheikh Abdul Jabbar 53 DLR 488

Regulation 9-

This Court has no power or jurisdiction to examine the legality or the propriety of any order or judgment made by the Divisional Commissioner in respect of civil matter in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation and others vs Sheikh Abdul Jabbar 53 DLR 488

Regulation 17(2)(3)-

No appellate or revisional power has been given to the High Court Division against any order passed by the Commissioner or by the Government.

Bangladesh Forest Industries Development Corporation and others vs Sheikh Abdul Jabbar 53 DLR 488

Rule 48—

Forced retirement of Mauza Headman-Whether violative of natural justice- There is no provision under the Rules for forced retirement, although action against the headman could be taken on grounds of incompetence or misconduct. The forced retirement of Headman Shewe Hla Prue TK is a punishment and, as such, it was necessary for the respondents to give him an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned orders.

Shewe Hla Prue TK vs Commissioner, Chittagong 44 DLR 539.

Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation, 1900

 

Chittagong
Hill Tracts Regulation, 1900

 

Regulation—48

Bohmong
Chief

According
to the established usage and custom of the Bohmong Chircle, the office of the
Bohmong Chief is a customary office and not an elected or political office on
politico administrative considerations. Both the Government and the Court have
to recognise their custom and usage and not to introduce any other criterion or
factor which will add to the customary requirements of that office. The introduction
of an element of political acceptability of a claimant to the office of the
Bohmong Chief is an extraneous consideration in the selection of the Bohmong
Chief, which is an alien criterion for selection.

Aung Shwe
prue Chowdhury Vs. Kyaw Sam Prue Chowdhury & ors, 18 BLD (AD) 33.

 

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.