Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation, 1900
Section 7, 8(1), 12, 18, 19 r/w
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 115(1) r/w
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 152
Forged and fabricated Power of Attorney and Nadabipatra does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law— It is evident from the death certificate of Mostafa Khatun that she died on 01.06.1984 at the age of 80 years while the alleged Power of Attorney was created by the defendant No.1 on 24.07.1984 wherein said Mostafa Khatun had been shown as the executant of the same. But practically it is impossible for Mostafa Khatun to execute the alleged Power of Attorney after her death. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the alleged Power of Attorney which is the basis of title of the defendant No.1 is forged and fabricated one and as such the same does not have any evidentiary value in the eye of law.
It transpires from the record that the defendant No.1 filed a Nadabipatra dated 05.08.1984 in support of his title. But on going through the said Nadabipatra it divulges that there is no witness in the said document and the discrepancy is patent between the signature of the plaintiff available in the Nadabipatra with the one contained in the plaint. Therefore, it is evident that the said Nadabipatra is forged and fabricated one. Appellate Division find that the plaintiff has been able to prove his case and the trial Court on proper appreciation of facts and law decreed the suit while the appellate Court below rightly dismissed the Appeal. .....Md. Abdus Salam =VS= Md. Nazrul Islam, (Civil), 2025(1) [18 LM (AD) 247] ....View Full Judgment

Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation, 1900
Section 17 r/w
The Land Appeal Board Ain, 1989
The Deputy Commissioner of the district has been given power to revise any order passed by a Deputy Magistrate or Deputy Collector or a Sub-Deputy Magistrate or Sub-Deputy Collector and a Divisional Commissioner may revise any order made under the Regulation by the Deputy Commissioner and the Government may revise any order made by the Commissioner. Under this provision, no power has been given upon the Land Appeal Board to revise any order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. The Land Appeal Board Ain, 1989 has been empowered to exercise such powers as may be given by the government or by any other law. There is a provision for appeal to the government from the decision of the Board and the said decision of the appellate authority shall be final. Subsequently, by circular under memo dated May 23, 1989, the following powers of the Board has been given from the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) and the Divisional Commissioner for its disposal:(ক) ভূমি সংক্রান্ত মামলা, (খ) নামজারি ও খারিজ মামলা, (গ) পরিত্যক্ত, অরপিত ও বিনিময় সম্পত্তি বিষয়ক মামলা, (ঘ) সায়রাত ওজলমহল সংক্রান্ত মামলা, (ঙ) ভূমি রেকড সম্পরকিত মামলা, (চ) ভূমি উন্নয়ন কর, সারটিফিকেট মামলা, (ছ) ওয়াকফ বা দেবোত্তর সংক্রান্ত মামলা (জ) খাসজমি বন্দোবস্ত সম্পর্কিত মামলা।.....Wagachara Tea Estate Ltd =VS= Muhammad Abu Taher, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 478] ....View Full Judgment

On a plain reading of the Regulation of 1900, one may arrive at the conclusion that this Regulation was promulgated with the object of giving a special privilege to the indigenous people of the three hill districts to protect and safeguard their culture, traditional practices and customs, and they should not fall prey to the tactics of unscrupulous people. A privilege is a special right reserved to an individual person or a limited class of persons, bodies or institutions. Its grant is generally attended by some degree of formality in the form of letters patent or some other document. Privileges would occupy a small circle within a much larger circle of rights. Every privilege is a right but not every right is a privilege. .....Wagachara Tea Estate Ltd =VS= Muhammad Abu Taher, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 478] ....View Full Judgment

The Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 42 r/w
The State Acquisition of Tenancy Act, 1950
Section 97 r/w
The Chittgaong Hill Tracts Regulation, 1900
Rule 34 r/w
The Rangamati, Bandarban, Khagrachori Zilla Parishad Ains, 1989
Section 64(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g)
The restrictions mentioned in Article 42 will be available in section 97 of the State Acquisition of Tenancy Act, 1950, Rule 34 of the Rules for the administration of the Chittgaong Hill Tracts and section 64 of the Rangamati, Bandarban, Khagrachori Zilla Parishad Ains, 1989. Section 97 of the Act of 1950 provides ‘Restriction of alienation of land by aboriginals’. Under this provision if an aboriginal raiyat desires to transfer holding or any portion thereof by private sale, gift or will to any person who is not such as aboriginal, he may apply to the Revenue Officer for permission in that behalf and the Revenue Officer may pass such order on the application as he thinks fit. There are also restrictions for mortgage of land of aboriginals. Rule 34 of the Rules promulgated in exercise of powers under Chittgaong Hill Tracts Regulation, 1900 which restricts “Settlement and Government khas land, Transfer, Partition and Subletting”. It is provided that no ‘settlement of Government Khas Land shall be made in the district of Chittagong Hill Tracts except in the manner specified in clauses (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). Section 64 of the Ains of 1989 prohibits sale, lease, settlement or otherwise transfer of lands of three hill districts without prior permission of the Hill District Parishads. .....Wagachara Tea Estate Ltd =VS= Muhammad Abu Taher, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 478] ....View Full Judgment

The law regarding succession to the post of the Chief of Mong Circle and the customs, traditions, usages and the recommendations by the Deputy Commissioner, three members of the Parliament from Hill Districts, Chairmen and headmen of the Hill District in consonance to the Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division.
Rajkumari Llnika Devi vs Bangladesh & others 9 BLC (AD) 181.

Respondent No. 1 was the regular Headmen of two Muzas, namely Sekdu & Naithong Muza under Thanchi Upazila. While discharging his duty as such he came to know the order of impugned retirement. issued by the Deputy Commissioner at the instance of the Commissioner, Chittagong Division. This order was challenged by the respondent in writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that no show cause notice was served upon him before passing the said order of retirement—High Court Division found that the retirement being a kind of punishment it was necessary for the authorities to give a show cause notice to the writ- petitioner before retiring him from his office. This having not been done, there was a violation of the principle of natural justice— Held : High Court Division has rightly interfered with the order of retirement of respondent No. 1 upon good and valid reasons. There has neither been any error of law nor miscarriage of justice. [Para-6]
Mr. Ana Ram Tripura Vs. Shwe Hda Prue & Ors. 4 BLT (AD)-19.

Bohmong Chief
According to the established usage and custom of the Bohmong Chircle, the office of the Bohmong Chief is a customary office and not an elected or political office on politico administrative considerations. Both the Government and the Court have to recognise their custom and usage and not to introduce any other criterion or factor which will add to the customary requirements of that office. The introduction of an element of political acceptability of a claimant to the office of the Bohmong Chief is an extraneous consideration in the selection of the Bohmong Chief, which is an alien criterion for selection. Aung Shwe prue Chowdhury Vs. Kyaw Sam Prue Chowdhury & ors, 18 BLD (AD) 33.

The Session Judge has been given the power to take cognizance of any offence as a court of original jurisdiction. This power has been given to a Magistrate in respect of other Session Divisions of the country. The three districts have been constituted three separates civil jurisdictions under three Districts Judges and a Joint District Judge has been given power to exercise a court of original jurisdiction under section 8(4). While exercising such power he shall follow the existing laws, customs and usages of the districts concerned, except the cases arising out of Family Laws and other customary laws of the tribes of the districts of Rangamati, Khagrachori and Bandarban respectively, which shall be triable by the Mauza headmen and Circle Chiefs. Against an order, judgment or decree passed by the Joint District, the District Judge have been given the appellate power.
The High Court Division has been given all appellate powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure under section 9, but in respect of civil disputes no such power has been given upon the High Court Division. These provisions are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the government still recognize the customs and usages of the tribal people of the region while adjudicating civil disputes.
The High Court Division has totally ignored these aspects of the matter. The appeal is therefore, allowed. The judgment of the High Court Division is set aside, so far as it relates to the observation that Regulation 1 of 1900 is a dead law. .....Ministry of Finance =VS= Rangamati Food Products Ltd., (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 302] ....View Full Judgment

The office of the Bohmong Chief of the Bohmong Circle is not political and as such the selection and appointment of the Bohmong Chief need not be made on any political or administrative consideration. Age afid fitness are the main criterion on the basis of which the Bohmong Chief is selected and appointed solely according to age-old customs and usages. So long the senior ftiost male lineal descendant of the Bohmong dynasty is not adjudged physically and mentally incapable, he can not be denied his customary right to the office and dignity of the Bohmong Chief.
Aung Shwe Prue Chowdhury Vs. Kyaw Sain Prue Chowdhury and others. 3 MLR (1998) (AD) 41.