High Court Division · Special Original Jurisdiction
Nizam Uddin v Government of Bangladesh, Ministry of Land and others
Writ Petition 9068/2024 · Rule made absolute · Decided 15 September 2026
The petitioner claimed land in Mouza Uttar Khan, Dhaka by inheritance from the C.S. recorded tenant, and final R.S. khatian No. 5514 stood in his name. He challenged memos of 09.05.2024 and 28.05.2024 by which land record officials directed that a new khatian replace his. The memos relied on a PBI report and a Zonal Settlement Office report obtained in a criminal case that had been dismissed because the dispute was civil in nature. The added respondents, claiming as purchasers from other heirs, argued that his record was obtained by fraud, that the facts were disputed and that a civil suit was the proper remedy. The High Court Division held that it was examining jurisdiction, not title. Reports prepared in a criminal proceeding could not substitute for adjudication of title by a civil court, no procedure under the 2021 gazette notification had been initiated, and a revenue officer had no authority to decide the dispute. The Rule was made absolute.
- Whether land survey officials could direct the replacement of a finally published khatian on the basis of a police report and a settlement office report prepared in a criminal case.
- Whether the existence of a dispute over title and possession barred the High Court Division from examining the legality of the impugned memos in writ jurisdiction.
- The existence of a dispute as to title and possession does not by itself preclude the Court from examining in writ jurisdiction whether public authorities acted without or in excess of jurisdiction.
- Reports prepared in the context of a criminal proceeding cannot lawfully be treated as a substitute for adjudication by a competent court regarding title and possession.
- Directing correction of a finally published record of rights on the basis of such reports was wholly beyond the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of the Land Record and Survey Directorate.
- Rule 42A of the Tenancy Rules, 1955 allows the Settlement Officer to act on an allegation of fraud after notice and a contested decision, but does not authorise sending a matter for rehearing without giving the opposite parties an opportunity to contest.
- Under the gazette notification of 29.07.2021, where an application alleging a fraudulent entry reveals a title dispute, the Assistant Commissioner (Land) must close the case and direct the parties to a civil court.
- Disputed claims of title and possession between an heir and subsequent purchasers must be adjudicated by a civil court on evidence, and a revenue officer has no lawful authority to decide them.
This disputed claim of title and possession is definitely a question that has to be adjudicated by a competent court with civil jurisdiction upon taking evidence. A revenue officer does not have any lawful authority to decide the issue.
