Revenue Officers Have No Authority to Alter Final Land Records in Disputed Ownership Cases: High Court

Disputes over land ownership and possession must be resolved by a competent civil court.

The High Court Division delivered the judgment on 15 September 2026, following the final hearing of Md. Nizam Uddin v. Government of Bangladesh and others, Writ Petition No. 9068 of 2024. The bench comprised Justice Urmee Rahman and Justice Sashanka Shekhar Sarkar. A copy of the judgment was published on the Supreme Court's website on 25 October 2026.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Md. Nizam Uddin, claimed ownership by inheritance of a piece of land in Uttarkhan, Dhaka. According to his claim, the land was originally recorded in the name of his grandfather, Kudrat Ali, in the C.S. record. Subsequently, his father, Hasen Uddin, inherited the property, and following his father's death, the petitioner became his successor. The R.S. Khatian No. 5514 was later published in the petitioner's name. He claimed that he had constructed a building on the land, lived there for a long time, and regularly paid holding taxes and utility bills.

On the other hand, the respondents claimed that they had purchased the land through registered deeds from the heirs of the original recorded owners. They alleged that the record published in the petitioner's name had been created through fraud. Several civil and criminal proceedings arose from the dispute. Although the Police Bureau of Investigation (PBI) submitted a report in a related criminal case, the case was dismissed on 12 December 2023 on the ground that the dispute was civil in nature.

Subsequently, in 2024, officials of the Directorate of Land Records and Surveys initiated steps to alter the disputed record and publish a new khatian. The concerned offices later issued directions to incorporate the new record. Challenging the legality of these administrative actions, Nizam Uddin filed a writ petition before the High Court.

Observations of the High Court

The Court observed that the parties had a dispute over the ownership and possession of the land. However, the central issue in the writ petition was whether the government officials had acted within their lawful jurisdiction when issuing the impugned orders. The existence of a dispute over ownership does not prevent the High Court from examining whether the actions of public authorities were unlawful or beyond their jurisdiction.

The Court further observed that a police investigation report or a report prepared by a Zonal Settlement Officer cannot substitute for a determination of ownership and possession by a competent civil court. The concerned officials had directed changes to the finally published land record on the basis of such reports without a judicial determination by a civil court. The Court held that these actions were beyond their lawful authority.

The judgment also referred to a Ministry of Land gazette notification published on 29 July 2021, which established a procedure for correcting fraudulent entries in finally published records of rights. Where a dispute over ownership exists, the matter must be referred to a civil court for adjudication. The Court found no evidence in the case record that the prescribed procedure had been followed.

Rule Made Absolute; Administrative Orders Declared Without Lawful Authority

Considering the facts and circumstances, the High Court made the Rule absolute. It declared the impugned memoranda issued by the concerned officials, along with subsequent actions taken on their basis, to have been issued beyond lawful authority and to be without legal effect.

The Court made no order as to costs. The earlier orders of stay and status quo were also vacated.

Legal Significance

An allegation of fraud in a finally published land record does not automatically empower administrative authorities to alter it at their discretion. The procedure prescribed by law must be followed. Where the dispute concerns the substantive issues of land ownership and possession, it must be resolved by a competent civil court on the basis of evidence. Public officials must exercise their powers strictly within the limits of their lawful jurisdiction and in accordance with the procedures established by law.

Case Reference: Md. Nizam Uddin v. Government of Bangladesh and others, Writ Petition No. 9068 of 2024. Judgment dated 15 September 2026, High Court Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh.