Land Appeal Board Rules, 1990 | Case Reference

Land Appeal Board Rules, 1990 

Rules 3(2) and 3(3)

When Parliament passes an Act, a provision is incorporated in the Act, granting power to frame Rules, which may be necessary in future for proper implementation of the particular Act. It is in consonance with such a Parliamentary practice that the Act of 1990 also provided for framing of Rules. However those Rules have to be framed for supplication or implementation of the parent Act. The Rules framed under an Act certainly cannot make substantive provisions, like formation of a Full Board, which is not provided in the parent Act. [73 DLR 478]

Rules 3(3), (5), 4(1)(3) and 5

A reading of the order of the Full Board further shows that in fact, they re- opened the matter and re-heard the same and has written out a fresh judgment on the same materials considering which the Chairman of the Land Appeal Board passed the order on 29.08.1995. It also appears to us that the Full Board proceeded in a manner as if they were hearing an appeal from the order of the Chairman of the Land Appeal Board and corrected the mistake committed by him which was not within the scope and extent of the exercise of the power of re- view. The Full Board also failed to appreciate that the object of review is neither to enable the reviewing authority to re-hear the matter nor to write a second judgment. And in the context, the High Court Division rightly held that the Full Board travelled beyond its jurisdiction in deciding matters not within its jurisdiction as contemplated under the Rules, 1990. Md. Mintu Chowdhury vs. Khurshid Nayeem (Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah J) (Civil) 10 ADC 148

Rule 3(3)

However, it appears that the learned Judges of the High Court Division considered the contentions of both the con- testing parties deeply and examined the relevant provisions of Land Appeal Board Rules, 1990 meticulously and by making elaborate discussion came to the finding that rule 3(3) of the Land Appeal Board Rules, 1990 does not actually provide any scope for a second review. Nawabgonj Government Col- lege vs. Md. Aftabuddin (Nazmun Ara Sultana J) (Civil) 9 ADC 338