Vested Property Cannot Be Released Until Ownership Dispute Is Resolved: High Court
 |
| Supreme Court of Bangladesh |
The High Court has delivered an important judgment holding that where there is a dispute over the ownership and title of a property listed as vested property, the dispute must first be resolved by a competent civil court before the property can be released from the vested property list.
The Court observed that complex questions of title, ownership and legal rights cannot be determined in summary proceedings under writ jurisdiction. Such disputes must be adjudicated by a competent civil court.
The Court also directed that until the pending ownership dispute is finally resolved, the disputed property shall not be released in favour of either party and the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to possession.
Writ Petitions Disposed of, Ownership to Be Determined by Civil Court:
A bench comprising Justice A.F.M. Saiful Karim and Justice Fatema Najib of the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh delivered the judgment on 19 May 2026.
The two writ petitions are Writ Petition Nos. 3820 of 2021 and 3821 of 2021. As both petitions arose out of proceedings concerning the release of the same property from the vested property list, the High Court heard and disposed of them together.
What Was the Dispute?
According to the case records, two parties claimed title to the same property on the basis of separate deeds and a court decree.
The writ petitioner, Shahabuddin Ahmed, claimed that he purchased the property from Alok Kumar Datta by a registered sale deed dated 8 July 1996. He subsequently remained in possession of the property, had it mutated in his name and paid land development tax and other government dues.
On the other hand, the opposing party claimed that he had entered into a bainapatra (agreement for sale) with Alok Kumar Datta on 23 May 1996. After the seller allegedly refused to execute and register the sale deed, he instituted a suit for specific performance of contract. Following a decree in that suit, a registered sale deed was executed through the court on 26 January 2003. As a result, competing claims of title arose over the same property.
What Happened Before the Tribunal?
Both parties instituted separate suits before the Vested Property Release Tribunal seeking release of the property from the vested property list.
After hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed judgments and decrees on 17 September 2018. One suit was decreed in favour of release of the property, while the other was dismissed.
The matter subsequently went on appeal. On 1 February 2021, the Vested Property Release Appellate Tribunal allowed both appeals and set aside the judgments and decrees of the Tribunal. Aggrieved by those decisions, the concerned party approached the High Court by filing the writ petitions.
High Court's Key Observations:
The High Court found that both parties were claiming their respective titles through Alok Kumar Datta. The writ petitioner relied on the registered sale deed of 1996, while the opposing party relied on a subsequent deed executed through court pursuant to a decree passed in a suit for specific performance of contract.
The Court further noted that the validity and effect of the decree passed in the earlier suit remained the subject of subsequent civil proceedings. At the same time, the genuineness of the writ petitioner's 1996 sale deed was also disputed.
In such circumstances, the High Court held that the disputed questions concerning the genuineness of deeds, title and ownership cannot be determined in summary proceedings under writ jurisdiction. These matters must first be determined by a competent civil court.
High Court's Final Directions:
The High Court disposed of both Rules Nisi with the following directions:
First, the title and ownership of the property must be determined by the competent civil court.
Second, until the ownership dispute is determined, the property shall not be released in favour of either party.
Third, the Deputy Commissioner, Faridpur shall release the property in favour of the party whose title is ultimately determined in the pending legal proceedings arising out of the decree in the relevant title suit.
Fourth, all concerned parties must maintain status quo in respect of possession of the property until its release by the Deputy Commissioner, Faridpur.
The Court also made no order as to costs.
Significance of the Judgment:
The judgment reiterates an important principle concerning the limits of writ jurisdiction: the High Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction in summary proceedings, is not a substitute for a civil court for determining complicated questions of title and ownership.
Where the ownership of a property is seriously disputed and the validity or genuineness of competing deeds and previous decrees is in question, such matters require determination by the competent civil court rather than final adjudication in a writ proceeding.
In the present case, the High Court therefore refrained from determining which party holds the better title. Instead, it directed that the property remain subject to the existing legal process and that possession be preserved through maintenance of status quo until the ownership dispute is finally resolved.
BD Law Post/Masum
