Jurisdictional complexities in the Land Survey Tribunal

The Land Survey Tribunal (and Appellate Tribunal) is constituted under Chapter XVIIA of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act 1950 (SAT Act). Its jurisdiction is confined to the correction of entries in the record-of-rights (Khatian) arising from final surveys (BS, RS, etc.), rather than deciding substantive, longstanding title disputes. In contrast, civil courts have plenary jurisdiction over all civil matters, including exclusive authority to adjudicate on title and possession of immovable property, unless expressly barred.

The Land Survey Tribunal (and Appellate Tribunal), while adjudicating disputes, exercises powers and follows procedures under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, insofar as they are not inconsistent with the Act. In doing so, it may examine incidental questions of title and possession, trace the chain of records from the CS survey to the latest record-of-rights, and assess the authenticity and evidentiary value of title documents. However, as it is not a civil court, it lacks jurisdiction to finally determine title or possession of immovable property. This is where the jurisdictional complexity arises.

First, even a cursory perusal of the title deeds referred to in the pleadings may reveal a chain of title inconsistent with the plaintiff’s claim and, in turn, indicate a competing legal interest in favour of the contesting party. In such circumstances, the existence of those deeds assumes considerable significance, as it entitles the defendant to deny, or to be interested in denying, the specific legal character or right asserted by the plaintiff. Consequently, the dispute ceases to be one of mere correction of the khatian and instead involves complex questions of title and possession requiring adjudication by a civil court.

Similarly, where the plaintiff neither challenges the authenticity nor disputes the existence of registered title deeds, and no evidence is adduced to show that they are void or invalid, such documents carry a statutory presumption of genuineness under the Evidence Act 1872 (sections 76, 79, and 90). Unless set aside by a competent court, they remain valid and operative, and their recitals are admissible and binding. In such circumstances, the core controversy extends beyond record correction and essentially involves the determination of title along with consequential relief.

Again, a claim of title founded on an alleged family settlement among the co-heirs of a common predecessor cannot be sustained where the existence of the settlement (aposhnama) is denied by the contesting party and remains unproven by any document, eg, a partition deed, or any order of partition passed by a competent civil court. In the absence of such proof, questions relating to the determination of share, hotchpotch (inclusive account of possible contestations over the property), and title inevitably arise. Hence, in these types of cases as well, recourse to civil courts becomes necessary.

Now, if the dispute involves correction of immediate records (SA khatian) that constitute the immediately preceding record-of-rights prior to the final publication of the current record and serves as corroborative evidence thereof. In the course of adjudication, the Tribunal is required to examine whether the names of the plaintiff or his predecessors-in-interest were recorded therein and may, where appropriate, draw a presumption of hereditary succession between the plaintiff (or his predecessors) and the SA-recorded raiyat. It is pertinent to note that the non-recording of the plaintiff’s names or their predecessors-in-interest in the SA khatian, or any dispute alleging incorrectness of both the former SA khatian and the present BS khatian, also involves determination of title.

In fact, even when the dispute involves correction of abandoned property at the time of adjudication, where the disputed land has been recorded as abandoned property in BS Khatian No 1/1 under the Orpito Sampotti Prattarpan Ain 2001, and has further been included in the ‘Ka’ schedule of a Government Gazette notification, such recording and inclusion give rise to a question involving the determination of title.

As we can see, all such disputes involving the determination of title and consequential relief, or issues of share and hotchpotch, etc., must be adjudicated by a competent civil court through a properly instituted suit. Under section 145A (5) of the SAT Act, not only section 144 suits but also many other civil-triable cases were transferred to the Tribunal; yet, after prolonged proceedings, they are often dismissed on the ground that the disputes fall within the jurisdiction of the civil court. Such dismissals, added to similar outcomes in regular suits, cause significant hardship to litigants, who endure lengthy proceedings only to have their cases rejected for want of jurisdiction.

In my opinion, an urgent amendment to Chapter XVIIA under Part V of the SAT Act should be introduced to empower the Tribunal, either on its own motion or upon application, to transfer to a competent civil court a case at any stage of the proceedings, even at the time of pronouncement of judgment, if it finds that the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the civil court. The civil court shall thereupon treat the matter as a duly instituted civil suit, register it accordingly, assess and realise any requisite court fees, and proceed with the trial from the stage at which the Land Survey Tribunal left off.

Alternatively, where the land survey tribunal suit discloses a substantial question of title, the record may be transmitted to the competent Civil Court (having been powered by Gazette Notification 478 dated 1 November 2023) for joint hearing and disposal with any pending civil suit, thereby ensuring effective adjudication and avoiding conflicting decisions in parallel proceedings.

The writer is member of the Bangladesh Judicial Service.