Hasna Banu Vs. Bangladesh and others [ 56 DLR (2004) 344)]
Background: The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of her title in 2 decimals of land with two tin huts thereon. The land originally belonged to Tamej Sheikh and was transferred several times before being sold to the plaintiff. The defendant, Additional Divisional Commissioner (Revenue), served a notice asking the plaintiff’s husband to vacate the land, casting doubt over the plaintiff’s title.
Issue: Whether the plaintiff has any right, title, and possession in the suit land, and whether the suit land ever vested in the government?
Judgment: At first, the trial court decided in the plaintiff’s favour, concluding that there was enough proof to prove her ownership and occupation of the land. The court took note of her rent payments and other supporting documentation for her claim. The appeal court, however, reversed this ruling, claiming that the land was “Chandina” and so government property. The belief that the land was inside the area open to wholesale acquisition served as the foundation for this judgement. This decision was based on the view that the land was within the area subject to wholesale acquisition.
Nevertheless, the higher court disapproved of the appeal court’s interpretation after more investigation. It reasoned that the government did not acquire ownership of the land simply by designating it as “Chandina.” The land’s location on the edge of the bazaar suggests it was not intended for government acquisition, and the court emphasised that the record of rights was prepared prior to the wholesale acquisition. The defense’s case was further undermined by the defendant’s inability to provide proof of the final compensation assessment-roll. In the final judgment, the court overturned the appellate court’s ruling and maintained the plaintiff-friendly decree from the trial court. As a result, the plaintiff’s ownership and title to the contested land were reinstated.
Reasoning: The appellate court’s decision was based on the fact that the land was recorded as ‘Chandina’ in the SA record of rights, which indicated that it vested in the government. The plaintiff countered that the land was never intended to vest in the government because it was not “in the hat or bazaar” as defined by Section 20 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950. In addition, the plaintiff offered proof of her ownership and title to the property.
Comment: The decision made by the appellate court seems to have been based on an incorrect interpretation of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950’s provisions as well as the characteristics of “Chandina” land. The appellate court rejected the plaintiff’s strong proof of ownership and possession without providing a good explanation. The case emphasises how crucial it is to comprehend the legal ramifications of various land record types as well as the subtleties of land tenure. It also emphasises how crucial it is for judges to properly interpret the law and carefully weigh all available evidence.
Background: The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of her title in 2 decimals of land with two tin huts thereon. The land originally belonged to Tamej Sheikh and was transferred several times before being sold to the plaintiff. The defendant, Additional Divisional Commissioner (Revenue), served a notice asking the plaintiff’s husband to vacate the…