Case Details

Citation(s)
1967 SLG 5422 = 1967 SLD 5422 = 1967 PLD 106
Dacca High Court
Civil Rule No. 1277 of 1965, decided on 13th April 1966.
Presented By: K. M. Hasan and Abdus Subhan Choudhuri, JJ
S. C. Bose for Petitioner.   Md. Jani Alam, Senior Government Pleader for the Opposite- Party.

BROJA GOPAL DAS-Petitioner  

VERSUS

  PROVINCE OF EAST PAKISTAN-Opposite-Party  

Law: East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 (XXVIII of 1951)

Section: 20(2a)

East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 (XXVIII of 1951), S. 20(2a)-Land or building in hat or bazar-Cannot be retained by rent receiver-Lands or buildings whether constitute part or parts of bazar-Depends on whether lands and buildings standing thereon constitute and appertain to a certain bazar.     ORDER   K. M. HASAN, J.-There is no dispute that, Hat and Bazar vested in the Government of East Pakistan in accordance with the provision of East Bengal State Acquisition and Tenancy Act (hereinafter called "the Act"). The dispute is how much land and how many buildings standing thereon form part of the well-known Shambazar market.   Certain revisional survey plots of the Mouza Saber Dacca, sheet No. 4, were recorded in the name of the Collector on behalf of the Province of East Pakistan in the attested Khatian No. 5599. The petitioner Brojo Gopal Das filed an objection under section 19(1) of the Act that he was in possession of those plots by erecting houses and letting out to tenants. Initially the objection of the petitioner was allowed in respect of those plots including those plots, which had been in possession of the Government but the said order was vacated by the Settlement Officer under rules made under the Act on the ground of gross irregularity. The Settlement Officer thereafter directed Mr. M. Sarkar, S. D. A. S. O. to hear the objection case. He heard both the parties and by his order dated 12th December 1961, allowed the objection of the appellant in respect of the certain plots but neither was satisfied by the order and filed separate review petition. In the review petition, the Government, namely, the opposite-party was successful to the detriment of the claim of the petitioner   Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 19 (21 of the Act before the Settlement Officer, Dacca. The same was tried and heard by S. D. A. S. O., Sadar, south, Dacca and he allowed the appeal in respect of the plots Nos. 7259, 7260 and 7331 and confirmed the order of Mr. Sarkar in respect of other plots. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal under section 53 of the Act.   The learned…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register