Name:Md.

Hossion Ahmed
ID: 20-42570-1
Section: LL.B.(A)
Course: Land Laws of Bangladesh
Course teacher: Tasnuva Anika ma’am

Case 1

S. N. Kabir Vs Mrs. Fatema Begum and others

3 SCOB [2015] AD 16
Facts: Mrs. Fatema Begum who is a simple house wife had no source of income and dependent
on the plaintiff-husband. The plaintiff declared in the case that he is the owner of the suit
property and that the defendant-wife is his benamdar and is not the owner thereof. The plaintiff
is an industrialist and being with motive to get income tax relief purchased the suit property
being urban property in the “benami” of defendant No.1 and that the plaintiff purchased the suit
property with his own money and he has been residing in the suit property with his family
treating the same as his own property. Defendant No.1 knew that the plaintiff purchased the suit
property in the “benami” of defendant No.1 who was claiming ownership of the suit property at
the behest of her father and brother. Hence, the suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration
of title in the suit property. Defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing an application under
Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint, contending, inter
alia, that under the provision of section 5 of the Land Reforms Ordinance,1984 and the suit of
the plaintiff is barred as benami transaction is prohibited. The plaints of both the suits in the Trial
Court. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the High
Court Division, the plaintiff has filed these civil petitions for leave to appeal formerly this
Separation.
Issue: a) Whether the appellant can be the owner of the property or not?
b) Whether the land is agricultural or not?
Argument of Both Sides:
Appellant:- The Land Reforms Ordinance,1984 is considered as a whole, it will appear that
prohibition of benami transaction of “immoveable property” applies only in respect of
agricultural land and that the High Court Division having considered the provision of section 5
of the Ordinance in particular, came to the finding that section 5 of the Ordinance applies to both
agricultural and non-agricultural land. He further submits that section 5 of the Ordinance
undoubtedly relates to agricultural land and the purpose of the Ordinance is to maximize
production and to that end, provision has been made for stable and satisfactory relationship
between agricultural land owners and bargaders and the expression “immoveable property”
cannot be said to be unambiguous and there is a doubt as to whether in dealing with agricultural
land, the legislative authority at all intended to bring non-agricultural land within the mischief of
section 5 of the Ordinance and as such, the impugned judgment should be set aside.
Respondent: - The respondent argued that the benami transaction is prohibited. There was
support for the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court Division.
Decision with reasoning: “Benami” transactions which have been in vogue in the Indian Sub-
Continent for centuries denote a transaction which is done by a person without using his own
name, but in the name of another. Acquiring and holding property and even carrying on business
in names other than those of real owners or in fictitious names did not contravene any provision
of law and therefore, Courts had given effect to such transactions. In benami transaction, the
“Benamdar” has no beneficial interest in the property or business that stands in his name. He
only represents the real owner as his trustee. In benami transactions, the presumption is that a
person who pays money is the real owner and not the person in whose name the property is
purchased. Earlier men purchased properties in benami to cajole or shield themselves against the
creditors. There was also the need for defrauding by making secret transactions. Fear of
confiscation also led to benami holdings. Besides, these arrangements were aimed at evading the
law. The words ‘immoveable property’ occurring in section 5 of the Ordinance include both
agricultural and non-agricultural properties. There is no scope for encroaching upon the domain
of legislature by importing the words ‘rural area’ in section 5 and addition of such words will
amount to legislation by the judiciary which is not at all permissible. In the light of the findings
made before, the Court did not find any substance in these civil petitions for leave to appeal.
Accordingly, both the petitions are dismissed.
Conclusion: The Court dismissed the petition.

Case 2

Momtazuddin Sarker and others Vs Abdur Rob and others

53 DLR (AD) 67
Fact: Under section 96 of the State Acquisition & Tenancy Act 1950, The petitioners filed a case
for the pre-emption of the case land alleged that he is the co-sharer on the basis of a deed of gift
and the pre-emptied purchased the suit land on the basis of a registered deed of sale. But the
preempted denied the allegations and stated that he is a co-sharer in the suit holding and the case
against him is not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the same petitioners have filed this petition
for leave to appeal.
Issue: a) Whether the pre-emptied is the co-sharer or not?
b) Whether the petitioners are the pre-emptors or not?
Argument of Both Sides:
Appellant: - The pre-emptors having claimed pre-emption on the basis of Hiba as well as
inheritance acted illegally in holding that the pre-emptor is not co-sharer by inheritance as much
as there is no evidence and finding to that fact.
Respondent: - The petitioner having been substituted in place of the original pre-emptor they are
no doubt co-sharers by inheritance.
Decision with reasoning: The pre-emptor became a co-sharer in the holding on the basis of a
deed of gift High Court Division committed no illegality in holding that the Court found. He was
not a co-sharer by inheritance. Present petitioners are not merely legal representatives of the pre-
emptor and as such there is no scope to hold that they were co-sharers by inheritance at the time
of filing the case for pre-emption. Subsequent becoming of their co-sharers by inheritance during
pendency of the case cannot alter the character and status of the original pre-emptor.
Conclusion: So, the leave petition is dismissed

Case 3

Asgar Ali (Md) Vs Shahidul Islam PK (Md) and others

65 DLR (AD) 04
Facts: The Pre-emptor filed miscellaneous case for pre-emption of the land transferred by
registered kabala in favor of the respondent. When the pre-emptor disclosed the fact that he got
the land through pre-emption, the respondent came to know about the fact and made an
application for setting aside ex parted order allowing the pre-emption application stating that the
summons was not served upon them. So the appellant filled a written objection contenting inter
alia that the pre-emptier-petitioners received the summonses of the case by putting their left
thumb impression. The pre-emptied got the time for filling written objection but they did not so
that the pre-emptor filled for the possession of the case land through land. The pre-emption
miscellaneous case was finally disposed of on full satisfaction. The respondent did not produce
their father Yeazuddin as well as Mohsin in whose presence the process server served summons.
Issue: a) Whether the summons was not served upon the respondents?
b) Whether the respondent have no knowledge about the summons or not?
Argument of Both Sides:
Appellant:- It was acquiesced that the High Court Division erred in law in failing to consider that
the process server who was examined by the petitioner in support of due service of summons
and having made declaration in support of his due service the entire onus lied upon the
respondents to prove that the summons were not served upon them while they did not produce
their father Yeazuddin as well as Mohsin in whose presence the process server served summons.
Respondent: - The person or party did not get any such notice and they did not put their left
thumb impressions in the service return.
Decision with reasoning : It seems that submission was made to the consequence that when the
summonses of the miscellaneous case were served upon the pre-emptier-petitioners their father
Yeazuddin was present but they did not produce their father Yeazuddin presumably for
examination as a witness to deny the fact of service of summonses upon them. But it also appears
that none of them made any such statement even no suggestion was given to PW1 that his father
Yeazuddin was present when the process server served summons upon them. The court
considered that the acknowledgement of the postal service was not returned. Though the pre-
emptors failed to prove the service of the summonses of the case upon the pre-emptier-
petitioners through usual way as found by the learned Judge of the single Bench. It is not safe to
rely upon the statutory presumption of service of summonses through post in the absence of the
acknowledgement receipt. So, the Court can’t find any legal prove that the summons were served
upon them and dismissed the case.
Conclusion: For the discussion made above, there haven’t found any merit in the appeal and the
same is dismissed without any order as to cost.
Case 4

Israil Kha & others Vs. Syed Anwar Hossain & others
Fact: To get back the land of plot No.4 the plaintiffs did not take any step after expiry of the
period of lease mentioned in the kabuliyat. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, the under-raiyat, continued
their possession in suit plot No.4 as lawful tenants under the plaintiffs by holding over and after
acquisition of rent receiving interest, Under the government they became tenants directly.
Issue: Whether the defendants will get the possession.
Argument of both side:
Appellant: -The plaintiffs claimed, they went to the Tahsil Office for payment of rent and came
to know that the suit land appertaining to plot No.1/2 was recorded in the names of the
defendants. On Baishak,1388 B.S. The defendants in collusion with each other dispossessed the
plaintiffs illegally from the suit plot Nos.1, 2 and 4 of the suit lands.
Defendant: - The defendants opposed that that the Israil kha were the landowners, who used to
settle land in favor of different persons. Plaintiff No.1 settled suit plot No.4 to Md. Maznu , after
that, Md. Maznu sold the said property in favor of defendant No.1 and 2 by a registered deed of
sale dated 04.03.1949. Suit plot No.2 and 3 were owned and possessed by the plaintiff and his 2
sisters, Sundani Bibi and Dudu Bibi, who sold the same to Md. Salim in favor of defendant No.1
and 2 by a registered deed of sale dated 13.04.1946.
Decision & decisions reasoning: The plaintiffs-respondents failed to prove the story of them
alleged possession followed by dispossession by adducing convincing evidence. They also failed
to prove that the suit has been filed within the statutory period of limitation. So, the defendants
will be in the possession. The defendants continued as lawful tenant by holding over and after
acquisition of rent receiving interest under the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act. The rent
receipts and record of rights have got evidentiary value and that the defendants-petitioners had
been possessing the suit land for more than 40 years within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. And
also they didn’t file the suit within the statutory period of time.
Conclusion: The judgment transported by the High Court Division is set aside and the judgment
and decree passed by the appellate Court is restored. the defendants continued as lawful tenant
by holding over and after acquisition of rent receiving interest under the State Acquisition and
Tenancy Act, the defendant’s petitioners became tenants directly under the Government and
thatthe High Court Division failed to consider the aspect of the case.

Case 5

Abdul Aziz Bepari and Others Vs. Govt of Bangladesh and others
14 BLD (HCD) 225
Fact: The suit land alleged to have diluviated prior to the date when the provision P.O. 135
of1972 became operative in the locality. The trial Court ought to have decided this question on
evidence. It was contended that the provision of P.O. 135 of 1972 take effect only with respect to
the lands which reappeared after the order came into force in the locality. The petitioner appealed
to the High Court Division.
Issue: Whether the petitioner can get back the suit land

Argument of Both Sides:

Appellant: - He have land on the river bank. And by diluvioun his land was lost in the river. And
he claimed that after 30 years his land was re appeared.
Defendant: - Public prosecutor was argued that, the suit land alleged to have diluviated prior to
the
date when the provision became operative in the locality.
Decision & decisions reasoning: The High Court Division dismissed the Writ petition. The loss
of such lands or portion by diluvion took or takes place before the forth amendment of SAT Act.
Conclusion: SAT Act came in 1950 the owners and possessors of all kinds of lands have
become direct tenants under the Government. The right of possession after reappearance shall be
exercised initially by the Collector who shall make a survey of the land so re appeared and after
completion of survey, he shall allot the land to the tenant whose land were lost provided that the
quantity of land in his possession together with the land alluviated shall not exceed sixty
standard bighas and the excess land shall vest in the Government.