Aloke Nath Dey v. Government of Bangladesh 56 DLR (AD) 2004 66

 

Facts in Brief

The plaintiff- respondents filed a suit for the declaration that the order dated 17.12.1973 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Bakerganj in case no.1/62-63 under the provision of transfer of Agricultural land Act 1951 , herein after briefly called the Act is illegal without jurisdiction and not binding upon them in respect of the disputed property . The case of the Plaintiff is that  Plaintiff no. 1 had auction purchased the property in rent execution case no. 533 of 1931 in the benami of Krishna lalkandu , father of the Plaintiff no. 2 .Thereafter on 2.5.39 plaintiff leased out same portion of that holding to Afsar Ali Akon and on the receipt of the Kabuliyat from them. As the disputed land was recorded in the name of benamder , the plaintiff no. 1 obtained a deed of release from plaintiff no. 3, the only heir of Krishnalal kundo . The Additional Deputy Commissioner Barisal Treated the said deed of release as a deed of transfer and forfeited the disputed land and also imposed a fine of tk. 100 on plaintiff no. 2 under the provisions of the Act for transferring land in access of 10 standard bighs as provided in that act .

The trial court decreed the suit upon holding that the nadabipatra executed by the plaintiff no. 2 in favor of the plaintiff no. 1 was not a deed of transfer.

The defendant Govt. contested the suit contending that Krishnalal Kandu was not a benamder but a real purchaser of the suit property and the so called deed of release was if a deed of transfer and as such the order for forfeiture is valid and legal.

In second appeal the learned single judge of the HCD took up only one question as to whether the Nadabipatra could be treated as a deed of transfer order. The learned single judge of HCD did not find it to be a document of transfer.

 Issues   

1)      Whether the deed of release could be treated as a deed of transfer of not.

2)      Whether the appellant can forfeit the land of plaintiff no. 1 on the ground of transfer.

3)      Whether the forfeiture was valid or not.

Rule of Law

1)      Section 2 (e) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 puts an emphasis on the term “transfer”.

2)      Section 6 of the Transfer of Act,1882 deals with what may be transferred including ten exception of what may not be transferred.