State
Acquisition And Tenancy Act, 1950
President’s
Order No. 135 of 1972
The
provisions of P.O. 135 of 1972 take effect only with respect to the lands which
reappeared after Part-V of the S.A. and T. Act, 1950, came into force in the
locality. The suit land alleged to have accreted prior to the date when the
provisions P.O. 135 of 1972 became operative in the locality, the trial Court
ought to have decided this question on evidence. The case is sent back to the
trial Court for fresh hearing after taking evidence
Abdul Aziz
Bepari and Others Vs. Govt of Bangladesh and others, 14 BLD (HCD)225
Ref:
31 D.L.R. (AD) 195-Cited.
Section—2(13),
96(1)
After
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act came in 1950 the owners and possessors of all
kinds of lands have become direct tenants under the Government. The pre-emptor
is being a co-sharer and the purchaser being stranger, case land being part of
a holding that is portion of a compact land, although there is no khatian
number or plot number of the transferred land, it constitutes part of an
agricultural holding according to section 96(1) and section 2(13) of the State
Acquisition and Tenancy Act and as such the pre-emption in the instant case is
to be allowed.
Abdul Jabbar
and others Vs Mohammad Sekandar and others, 19 BLD (HCD) 83.
Sections—43(2)
and 72
Once
notification under sub-section (2) of section 43 of the Act is published in the
official gazette, such notification is conclusive proof of such publication and
of the date thereof and section 72 of the Act bars a civil Court from
entertaining any suit in respect of the preparation, signing and publication of
a Compensation Assessment Roll or any Part thereof under Chapter V or Chapter
VA of the Act.
Bangladesh
represented by the Secretary Ministry of L.A. and LR Vs Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed
Siddiky, 17 BLD (AD) 131.
Ref:
(1959)11 DLR (SC) 318; (1968) 20 DLR(SC) 144; 33 DLR (AD)13-Cited.
Section—81A(2)
Non-Agricultural
Tenancy Act, 1949, Sections—85(2) and 24
The
object of section 85(2) of the Non Agricultural Tenancy Act was to retain
control over non-agricultural land held by a tenant under the Government
unencumbered by the provisions of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. Section 8
1A(2) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act determines the rights and
liabilities of non-agricultural tenants other than those who have become
tenants under the Government by virtue of compulsory acquisition of land . The
Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act has not been mentioned to be a governing law in
respect of such tenants of nonagricultural land under the Government. Hence, on
both accounts, under section 85(2) of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act and
section 81A(2) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, the ouster of the
Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act from the categories mentioned therein is complete.
Section 24 of the Nonagricultural and Tenancy Act has no manner of application
to lands of Dhanmondi Residential Area.
Md.
Mosaddeque Hossain Vs. Dr. Esmat Mirza and others, 18 BLD (AD) 57.
Ref:
17 DLR384; 7 DLR 116; 33DLR 10—Cited.
Sections—86(2)(3)
and 87
When
the reformation of a diluviated land was complete before the date of coming
into force of Part V of the Act, provisions of amended sub-section (3) of
section 86 will not be applicable in respect of the said land. In such a case,
the right of the tenant will not be extinguished or destroyed for the suit land
going under water for some time before the coming into operation of this
amended provision of law. Similarly, accretion which took place before coming
into force of Part V of the Act shall be beyond the scope of subsections (1)
(2) of Section 87 of the Act and the rights of the owner shall remain
unaffected.
Hajee Fayez
Ahmed Vs. Shafiul Alam and another, 15 BLD (HCD) 524.
Ref:
Abdul Mannan and ors. Vs. Kulada Ranjan Mowali and ors, 31 DLR(AD)195;
Padmabati Biswas Vs. Bangladesh and others, 44 DLR 465; Lopez Vs. Muddun Mohan
Thakur, 13 MI. A. 467 (PC); Rai Kiran Chandra Roy Bahadur and ors. Vs. Tarak
Nath Gango Padhyay and others, 40C.W.N page 22 and 566—Cited.
Sections—95
and 51A
President’s
Order Nos 88 and 136 of 1972
President’s
Order No. 24 of 1973
Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908(V of 1908), Order 34
P.O.
88 of 1972 created special forum for restoration of mortgaged property. But it
did not take away right of redemption available to a mortgagor by filing a
mortgage suit under Order 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
In
that view of the matter High Court Division was totally wrong to held that the
suit was not maintainable as the transaction was past and closed. [Per Latifur
Rahman, C.J; (delivering the majority judgment].
Asmat Ali Vs
Abdur Rafique Mridha and others, 20 BLD (AD) 197.
Ref:
Bangladesh Vs. Haji Abdul Gani Biswas and ors, 32 DLR(AD)233—Cited
Sections—95
and 95A
The
plaintiff himself admitted the existence of a separate deed of reconveyance
which was not been produced before any of the courts below which escaped the
notice of the trial court as well as of the appellate court and there is also
no consideration of the circumstances as regards the prevalent price of such
lands at the relevant time which would have indicated the nature of the
questioned document. The trial court as well as the appellate court has
therefore wrongly decreed the suit. [Per Mahmudul Amin Choudhury, J
(dissenting)]
Asmat Ali Vs
Abdur Rafique Mridha and others, 20 BLD (AD) 197.
Section—95 A
Treatment of
certain transaction as Usufructuary Mortgage
To
attract the application of Section 95A of the Act the transaction in question
must be a subsisting one on the date of promulgation of President’s Order No.
88 of 1972 on 3.8. 1972. Transactions which were not alive on that date are to
be treated as transactions past and closed.
In
the present case, admittedly the mortgage was for 4 years which expired long
before 3.8.1972 and as such Section 95A of the Act will have no application to
such a transaction which was past and closed.
Abdul
Khaleque Sarnamat Vs. Abdul Khaleque Sarnamat 16 BLD (AD) 210.
Ref:
Bangladesh Vs. Haji Abdul Gani Biswas, 32 BLD(AD)233; Abu Bakkar Vs. Nazir
Ahmed, 34DLR(AD)237 — Cited
Section—95A
The
clear legislative intent of section 95A is that cases of sale attended with
agreement for reconveyance whether registered or unregistered would come within
the ambit of complete Usufructuary mortgage for a period of 7 years and
provisions of section 95(4) (5) would apply to such transfer. A contrary view
would clearly make the provisions of section 95A nugatory and frustrate its
purpose.
The
view taken by the High Court Division that an agreement for reconveyance with a
deed of sale as contemplated under section 95A of the Act is not required to be
compulsorily registered as required under section 95(2) of the Act has been
affirmed by the Appellate Division.
Abdus Salam
Sheikh Vs. Puspa Rani Shil, 16 BLD (AD) 299.
Ref:
Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Gani, 32 DLR(AD)233—Cited.
Section—95A
The
transfer of a holding by way of out and out sale, followed by a simultaneous
agreement to recovery the land to the vendor, is to be deemed to be a complete
Usufructuary mortgage under the provision of Section 95A of the Act.
Sree Kamada
Ranjan Bhattachargee Vs Kohinur Chowdhury and others, 17 BLD (HCD)460
Section—95A
The
plaintiff transferred .54 acre of agricultural land to the defendant by a
kabala executed on 10.7.1949 and the transferee executed an Ekramama on
13.7.1949 and both the documents were registered on 7.11.1949. In terms of the
Ekrarnama the transferee agreed to reconvey the land to the transferor if
consideration money was paid back within 6 years. In such circumstances, the
transfer in question must be held to be a complete usufructuary mortgage
although the transaction took place before the commencement of the Second
Amendment of the Act.
Md.
Rajiuddin Chowdhury Vs. Suruj Au, 16 BLD (HCD) 96.
Section— 95A
The
expression “either by way of an out and out sale with an agreement to reconvy”
as used in Section 95A of the S.A.T. Act indicates that the deed of
reconveyance is required to be registered and it must be a contemporaneous
document along with the document of transfer of land by way of out and out
sale. In order to obtain the benefit under this beneficial legislation the
party who seeks to obtain the benefit must strictly satisfy the authority that
he has complied with the requirements of law.
Rup Charan
Das Vs. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. 16 BLD (HCD)419
Ref:
8BLD(AD)84 — Cited.
Section—95A
Section
95A of the S.A.T. Act is in Part V of the Act and it came into operation in the
District of Chittagong on 1st August, 1963 and as such the provisions of
section 95A of the Act cannot be pushed beyond 1.8.1963 as no retrospectivity
was given to it . The disputed transaction is dated 13.12.1949 and even if it
is taken to be a complete Usufructuary mortgage, still then it cannot be
redeemed under section 95A of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, the
transaction being a past and closed one after the lapse of 7 years.
Nurul Islam
Chowdhury and another Vs. Upazila Revenue Officer, Patia, Chittagong and
others, 16 BLD (HCD) 31.
Ref:
31 DLR (AD) 195; 34DLR (AD) 237—Cited.
Section—95(2)(3)
An
unregistered agreement for reconveyance is enforceable in law and the provision
for registration of such an agreement as required under Section 95 (2)(3) of
the Act does not bar the enforcement of such an agreement.
Osman Gani
Talukder alias Sujat Au Talukder Vs. Md. Osman All Mondal, 16 BLD (HCD) 165
Ref:
47 DLR 67; 28 DLR221; 24 DLR 42.
Section—96
Waiver and
acquiescence defeat the right of pre-emption
When
the pre-emptor took a leading part in bringing about the transaction by
assisting the sellers in selling the land and encouraged the buyers in
purchasing it and himself negotiated the price, the conduct of the pre-emptor
is sufficient to give rise to waiver and acquiescence and as such estoppel
operates against him.
Akhlasur
Rahman & ors. Vs. Safurullah and others, 14 BLD (AD) 20.
Ref:
42 IA 10(18), (1955) ISCR 70; 38 DLR (1986) 361; 22 DLR(1970) 449; 18 DLR(SC)(
1966)364—Cited.
Section—96
Acquiescence,
when arises
Right
of Pre-emption accrues after the transfer of the land and this statutory right
cannot be taken away by mere verbal assurance of the person having such right
unless a clear case of waiver and acquiescence is made out on evidence.
Fazaruddin
Vs. Maijuddin and others, 14 BLD(AD) 29.
Section—96
Objection
about defect of parties must be taken at the earliest stage and it cannot be
entertained at the Appellate stage.
Mosammat
Saleha Bibi Vs. Taib Ali Mollah and others, 13 BLD (HCD) 677.
Ref:
41 DLR(AD)124; 41DLR, 336; 31 DLR(AD)88; 1983 BLD(AD), 105; 21 DLR (SC)
145-Cited.
Section—96
A
finding of fact in respect of the preemptors date of knowledge about the
impugned transfer arrived at by the lower Appellate Court on assessment of
evidence and the same having been affirmed by the High Court Division, the
Appellate Division found no justification for interference.
Amena Khatun
Vs. Abdul Motaleb and Others, 14 BLD (AD) 68.
Section—96
When
the application for pre-emption was made in time subsequent amendment for
impleading necessary parties after the expiry of the period of limitation is
permissible in law. Besides making all the co-sharers of the transferred
holding as parties, the petitioner claiming pre-emption as a contiguous
land-holder is required to make all the tenants holding lands contiguous to the
case land parties in the case
Most.
Khodeza Begum Vs. Md. Illias Mia and others, 14 BLD (HCD) 388.
Section—96
Since
the result of the Title Suit shall govern the result of the Preemption Case it
is expedient that the suit and the Pre-emption Case be heard simultaneously
Shanti
Ranjan Baroi and another Vs. Sri Jogesh Baroi and another, 14 BLD (HCD) 121.
Ref:
M/S Ayet Ali Bhuiyan and Company Ltd. Vs. Janata Bank, 40 DLR 56 and Bangladesh
Shilpa Bank Vs. Bangladesh Hotels Ltd, 38 DLR (AD)70-Cited.
Section—96
Section
96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act is a beneficial legislation,
intended for the convenience of the co-sharers of a holding land contiguous to
the land transferred. But it is also cloglon transfer of property.
Any
provision of law barring claim of pre-emption must be strictly construed.
Golchera
Khatun being dead her heirs: Akhtar Hossain and others Vs. Musammat Sayera
Khatun, 13 BLD (AD) 41.
Section—96
Pre-emption—Subsequent
re-conveyance not to defeat pre-emption
Acquisition
of title takes effect from the date of execution of the sale deed and not from
the date of its registration. With the sale the vendor loses all his interests
in the property and he is left with no interest therein to encumber the sale by
a subsequent agreement for re-conveyance. A colourable reconveyance cannot
defeat the right of pre-emption.
Captain Mohd
Lutfar Rahman Vs Mohd Abu Taher and others, 21 BLD (HCD) 334.
Ref:
Abul Hossain and ors. Vs. Md. Nasim Ali and ors, 19DLR677; Md. Sukur Ali Vs.
Sree Suresh Chandra Barmon and Ors, 4BLD219; Khorshed Ali and ano. Vs.
Aftauddin and ors. 47DLR607; Shafi Khan Vs.Mannujan Hossain and ors., 35 DLR
(AD) 225—Cited.
Sub—section
10(C) of Section 96
Sub-section
10(c) of Section 96 of the S.A.T. Act restricts the right of pre-emption by
providing that when a portion or share of a holding is transferred by gift by
the husband to the wife and vice versa or if the donee is a relation of the
donor by consanguinity within three degrees, such a transfer is not pre
emptible. Sub-section 10(c) of Section 96 clearly indicates that it has not
been designed to help the donor or donee to curtail the right of pre-emption of
a co-sharer of a holding where his right of pre-emption has already arisen
prior to such gift. In the instant case, the vendor of the case land did not
transfer his land by way of gift to his wife but he transferred the case land
to opposite part No.1 by a registered kabala. Opposite party No. 1, intern,
gifted the case land to opposite party No. 85. Under such circumstances, the
preemption case against opposite party No. 1 is quite maintainable in law as
the latter could not pass a better title to opposite party No. 85 than what he
had acquired by kabala from his vendor. Opposite party No. 85 acquired title in
the case land subject to the pre-emptors already accrued right of pre-emption.
Mohammad
Tayeb Vs. Haji Najir Ahmed and others, 16 BLD (HCD) 173.
Ref.
35 DLR (1983)238—Cited
Section—96
Reconveyance
made during the pendency of pre-emption proceeding cannot take away the right
of a pre-emption of the co-sharer.
Khorshed Ali
and another Vs. Aftabuddin and others, 16 BLD (HCD) 1.
Section—96
When
the pre-emptor took a leading part in bringing about the transaction by
assisting the sellers in selling the land and encouraged the buyers in
purchasing it and himself negotiated the price, the conduct of the pre-emptor
is sufficient to give rise to waiver and acquiescence and as such estoppel
operates against him. (Per A.M. Mahmudur Rahman, I, delivering the majority
judgment)
Most Rokeya
Begum Vs Md Abu Zaher and others, 20 BLD(AD) 90
Ref:
Akhlasur Rahman and ors Vs. Safurullah and ors, I4BLD(1994)(AD)20—relied.
Section—96
There
is absolutely no evidence from the side of the preemptee that there was an offer
to the preemptor and refusal of the same by him or that he himself negotiated
the transaction. The High Court Division without considering the facts and
circumstances relying up-on I4BLD(AD)20 and 44DLR(AD)62 wrongly applied the
principle in the instant case. [Per Mahmudul Amin Chowdhury, (dissenting)]
Most Rokeya
Begum Vs Md Abu Zaher and others, 20 BLD (AD) 90.
Section—96
Mere
knowledge or proposal for transfer is not sufficient to defeat the right of the
preemptor which accrues after the sale is affected. [Per Mahmudul Amin
Chowdhury, J. (dissenting)1
Most Rokeya
Begum Vs Md Abu Zaher and others, 20 BLD(AD) 90
Section—96
Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908), Order I Rule 10
Pre-emption
Proceeding—Necessary parties
In
a pre-emption proceeding the necessary parties may be added at any point of
time after institution of the suit but before hearing of the same.
Nizam Sheikh
and others Vs Alauddin Sheikh and others, 19 BLD(HCD)197
Ref:
14 DLR2O4, 33 DLR(AD)1 13, 1986 BLD (AD)22 1—Cited.
Section—96
Non-Agricultural
Tenancy Act, 1924, Section—24
The
words non-agricultural land means a piece of land in joint possession and
enjoyment without partition which may form the tenancy or a portion of tenancy.
This interpretation will not throw the land open to the unlimited number of
persons but to persons who are co-sharer tenants under the same landlord in
respect of undivided land though such co-sharer tenants may be co sharer
tenants of the tenancy.
Syed Sad Ali
Vs Bidhan Chandra Dev and ors., 20 BLD (HCD) 343.
Ref:
S M Basiruddin Vs Zahurul Islam Chowdhury, 35 DLR(AD) 230; Moniudra Chandra
Ghose Vs. Mujibul Islam, 12 DLR page 185—discussed
Section—96
Right of
Pre-emption-Estoppel
Any
and every act touching the transaction in which the pre-emptor may have taken
part or the mere fact of knowledge about the transfer or temporary
unwillingness on his part to buy cannot debar him from claiming his right at
the proper time. Therefore, when the pre-emptor’s inability to purchase the
land on the ground of financial inability which was a temporary one will not
operate as estoppel from purchasing the land and exercise his right of
pre-emption.
Abdul
Khaleque Vs Mosammat Kohinor Hamid, 20 BLD (HCD) 405.
Ref:
44DLR(AD)62; Akhlasur Rabman and ors Vs. Satarullah and ors, 42 DLR (AD)189;
Ocean Industries Ltd. Vs. Industrial Development Bank, I 8DLR(SC)364—Cited
Section—96(1)(2)
Limitation
and partial pre-emption
Since
one of the pre-emptees was not impleaded in the preemption case within the
statutory period of limitation, the case is barred by limitation at least as
against him. In such a case, even if the pre-emption case is found to be
maintainable against other preemptees, who were brought on record within time, the case must fail as a whole as
partial pre-emption is not permissible under section 96 of the SAT Act.
Mossammat
Arifan Nessa Vs Haroonor-Rashid and others, 17 BLD (HCD) 86.
Ref:
32 DLR 68; 38 C,W.N. 654; 49 C.W.N. 242; 19 DLR 659; 13 DLR 323, 14 DLR 847; 28
DLR 400; 42 DLR (AD) 110; 42 DLR(AD) 1 ;—Cited.
Section —96
Pre-emption
Pre-emption
is a kind of purchase in preference according to category. When the question of
purchase comes, the seller or transferee must have some right or saleable
interest in the holding without that what the buyer will get by pre-emption,
whatever may be the nature of transfer, So, against fictitious transfer
pre-emption cannot be allowed. If preemption is allowed in respect of
fictitious transfer, it will illegally affect the share and interest of the
real co-sharers, which cannot be allowed by a Court of law.
Md. Solaiman
Au Sheikh and others Vs Abu Bakar .Siddique and others, 17 BLD (HCD)444
Section—96
Homestead
outside Municipal area comes within its ambit
Transfer
of a homestead land by a raiyat beyond the Municipal area is pre-emptible under
section 96 of the S.A.T. Act and not under section 24 of the N.A.T Act.
Homestead is a part of the holding of a raiyat and is not excluded from the
operation of section 96 of the Act, homestead situated in the rural area being
regarded as an agricultural land.
Mantu Faraji
alias Jamal Faraji and others Vs. Mahiuddin Khan, 17 BLD (HCD) 600.
Ref:
20 DLR562; 21 DLR633; Civil Appeal No. 47-D of 1963; (Civil Revision No. 639 of
1969); 33DLR (AD)323; 30 DLR75;— Cited.
Section—96
The
view that whenever there is a reconveyance of the case land by the vendee to
the vendor, by any means whatsoever, the right of preemption is lost is too
radical a view it is contrary to the underlying principle regulating
pre-emption. Only a bonafide reconveyance by which the case land has actually
gone back to the original vendor may stand as a bar against pre-emption. In
view of the fact that the Appellate Division has already settle the law on the
subject in the case of Shaft Khan Vs. Monnuzan Hossain and others reported in
35DLR(AD) 225, the view of the taken by a single Bench of the High Court
Division in the case of Abbas Au Khan vs Osman Gani, reported in 37 DLR 25 is
evidently erroneous and unacceptable.
Abdul Mannan
Mollah and others Vs Md. Abid Ali Patwari and others, 18 BLD (HCD) 397.
Ref:
37DLR 25—Not approved.
Section—96(1)
When
a pre-emptor comes to the Court to exercise his right of pre-emption, which is
essentially a predatory right, after a long lapse of time a heavy duty is cast
upon him to prove his alleged knowledge about the impugned transfer by most
convincing evidence so as to circumvent the apparent bar of limitation.
Habibur
Rahman alias Md. Habibur Rahman and another, Vs Mobarak Au Ran and others, 17
BLD (HCD) 637.
Ref:
Anil Kumar and others Vs. Syed Hafeez Moinuddin & ors,35 DLR 39—Cited.
Section—96(1)
Testimony
of a co-sharer and witnesses as to the date of the knowledge of the transfer of
a portion or share of a holding of a raiyat should be considered in determining
whether the an application for pre-emption under section 96(1) had been filed
within four months of the date of the knowledge of the ask the transferor if he
had transferred the case land or other lands.
Kuleshar
Barman alias Kakaru Barman ‘. Sree Naresh Chandra Barman and others, 21 BLD (HCD)
597.
Section—96(3)
Statutory
deposit
Under
Section 96(3) of the Act the preemptor has to make the statutory deposit of the
consideration money with compensation at the time of filing the application for
preemption. The trial Court was thus wrong in accepting a short deposit. But in
view of the indolence and repeated laches of the petitioner enabling him to
remain in possession of the case land for over a decade and in view of the
farther fact that the pre-emptee is a co-sharer to the case of the Appellate
Division declined to interfere.
Md. Mojibar
Rahim Mondal Vs. Khoteza Khatoon, 16 BLD (AD) 281.
Section—96(3)(b)
A
preemptor may be held to be estopped from enforcing his right of preemption if
he abandons such right either expressly or by implied conduct. Acquiescence
implies that if a person abstained from interfering while a violation of his
legal right is in progress it operates by way of estoppel. In the instant case,
there are adequate evidence on record to prove that the petitioner had knowledge
of the sale made by his brother and he gave consent to the sale in question
waiving his preferential right of purchase.
Sree
Aumullaya Chandra Halter v. Md. Mohsin Au Mondal & others, 22 BLD (HCD) 572
Ref:
Akhlasur Rahman and others Vs. Serazuddin and others, 42 DLR (AD)189.
Section—96(10)(a)
Clause
(a) of sub-section 10 of section 96 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act
stands as a bar against the pre-emptor to maintain his application against the
preemptee, who acquired the status of a co-sharer by way of inheritance before
the deed of transfer under pre-emption was registered under section 60 of the
Registration Act.
Abdul Malek
Majhee Vs. Apser All Howlader, 17 BLD (HCD) 522.
Section—96
(10)(b)
Deeds
captioned as sale deeds-Can these be held to be deeds of exchange and not pre
emptible?
Three
deeds were executed in the same sitting and registered on the same day bearing
consecutive numbers 12006, 12007 and 12008-The transferees of deed no 12006
except Ahmed Au-are the recipients (transferees) of deed no. 12007 (recipients
being Belaiyat Au, Arab Ali and Rajah Ali), The recipients (transferees of deed
no. 12008 is Ahmed Ali alone, who is of the transferees of deed no. 12006-The
transferees of deed no. 12006 are together the recipients of deed nos 12007 and
12008 and the transferees of deed nos. 12006 are the transferees of deed nos.
12007 and 12008-Facts and circumstances of the case lead to the conclusion that
these are deeds of exchange and not of sale and as such not pre-emptible u/s 96(10)(b)
of the S.A.T. Act.
Patan Khan
and others Vs. Amud Ali Sheikh and others, 14 BLD (HCD) 461.
Section—144A
Presumption
of correctness of R.S. Khatian A record of rights finally published and revised
under section 144A of the S.A.T. Act has a presumption of correctness and that
presumption continues till it is rebutted by reliable evidence. In the instant
case the plaintiffs name has been recorded in the finally published R.S.
Khatian in respect of the suit property and the Government is realizing rent from
him regularly thereby recognizing .him as a tenant. Recognition of the
plaintiff as a tenant in respect of the suit property by the Revenue Authority
of the Government is binding upon the Vested property Department and
consequently the latter cannot claim the suit property as vested property.
Dayal
Chandra Mondal and others vs. The Assistant Custodian of Vested and NonResident
Properties (L & B) and Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Dhaka and
others, 18 BLD (HCD) 22.
Section—144A
In
the event of a conflict between the old Record of right and the recent record
of right, recent record of right would prevail in as much as presumption of the
record of right loses its weight with the passage of time and entry in the
subsequent khatian.
Fatema
Khatun Vs. Fazil Mia, 21 BLD (HCD) 14.
Ref:
Abdul Hamid and ors Vs. Abul Hossain Mir being dead his heirs Abdus Sobhan Mir
and ors, 35 DLR HCD295—relied
Section—147
An
appeal, whether from original order or from an appellate order made under any
provision of Part V of the Act by a Revenue Officer subordinate to Collector,
shall lie to the Collector and for such appeal, the period of limitation is
thirty days.
Abdur Rahman
and others Vs. The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 13 BLD (HCD)
411.
Ref:
Jafar Ali Vs. Khagendra Chandra Dutta, 1983 BLD 32-Cited.