| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1970 SLG 3252 1970 SLD 3252 = 1970 PLD 778 |
Dacca High Court
Petition No. 626 of 1966, decided on 22nd July 1968.
Presented By: B. A. Siddiky, C. J. and Maksum-ul-Hakim, J
Sultan Hossain Khan for Petitioner. . A. Matin Khan Chowdhury for
Respondent No. 3.
Petition No. 626 of 1966, decided on 22nd July 1968.
Presented By: B. A. Siddiky, C. J. and Maksum-ul-Hakim, J
Sultan Hossain Khan for Petitioner. . A. Matin Khan Chowdhury for
Respondent No. 3.
SAHADULLAH MALLICK-Petitioner
VERSUS
CHAIRMAN, CONCILIATION COURT, MYMENSINGH AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents
Law: Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961
Section: 7
Conciliation Courts Ordinance (XLIV of 1961), S. 7(1) read with Sched., Part 1, Section A-Section 7(1) speaks only of "com pensation" and not of "fine" or any prohibitory order-Conciliation Court imposing fine and also prohibiting petitioner from entering into disputed land-Order, held, without legal authority-Word "fine" in order, in absence of direction "to be paid to complainant"-Cannot be read to mean "compensation". In the present case the petitioner challenges an order of Conciliation Court sentencing petitioner to pay fine of Rs. 250 and also prohibiting him from entering into the disputed land. Held : the exercise of the power to award compensation to the aggrieved party to be paid by the guilty one has been under section 7(1) of the Ordinance. Section 7(1) only speaks of "compensation" but not of "fine" or any prohibitory order. The order of the Conciliation Court, therefore, is without any legal authority. Hence the same cannot be sustained. The expression "fine"' in the order of the Conciliation Court could be interpreted to be "compensation" if the order would have contained the further phrase "the fine to be paid to the complainant". Such a phrase is non-existent in the order of the Conciliation Court. The second part of the order of the Conciliation Court prohi biting the petitioner from entering into the land in dispute is wholly outside the scope of law and as such cannot be sustained. JUDGMENT SIDDIKY, C. J.-In this rule the petitioner has challenged an order of Conciliation Court of No. 10, Kaladah Union Council in the District of Mymensingh made on 10-3-1965 sentencing the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 250 and also prohibiting him from entering into the disputed land. Upon a petition of respondent No. 3, the aforesaid Concili ation Court, by a majority judgment, imposed a fine of Rs. 250 on the petitioner before us on 10-3-65. This order is purported to have been made under section A of Part I of the Schedule to the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has…