Real inconsistencies and
adversities in land management, context :
creation of fraudlent documents/deeds ----
(by Suman Chowdhury Biku)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those who work in the field level offices of land management in our country in fact, they don't have the minimum protection. Every moment they have to work with their neck under a sword. Perhaps the same proverb applies to them," AS MUCH FAULT AS NANDO GHOSH"! Even the deed is forged, there is no problem for those who have forged it, but with that document they have been unknowingly named, all the responsibility will come on them. But it is done so subtly, there is no way you can see and understand. You said to check, only then healed! Surely you will be accused of this, unnecessary harassment in the name of verification. Which, of course, made about the fake deeds. When such an incident occurs, the department which is the birthplace of the document does not come forward with any responsibility. Everyone attacked with that mutation. On the other hand, if there is a lot of talk in the book and in reality it is like Qazi's cow. As far as the law is concerned,
(1) it is mentioned
in section 150(i) of the s a & t act 1950." A revenue officer may,
on application made in that on behalf of anybody interested or of his own
motion review any order passed by himself or by any of his predecessor's in
office under the part and in so reviewing any order may modify." In
the light of this, this kind of work is done regularly, but in some cases,
especially in the case of fake documents, some departments do not want to take
these periods!
(2) The circular issued by the ministry of land on 02-09-2014 A. D in memorandum no. 31.00.0000.042.8.031.11.585 in reference to the final amendment of the record published in accordance with the existing law states that The revenue officer or the assistant commissioner (land) may correct the clerical mistake of the record in the final publication of section 150 (R) 23 (3) of section 150 of the s a & t act, 1955. Such as wrong name, wrong part placement, wrong plot mark, wrong record with map etc. In the same way, in the light of the application or report received for the amendment of the final published record created through fraudulent entry or forgery, the revenue officer will take action as per the rules for amending the record as per rule 23 (4) of the tenancy rules 1955.
(3) On page 21 of the Handbook for AC land book, paragraph D. 4.3, it is stated that the revenue authority cannot comment on any document in the naming process as forged or invalid. [ Asfake Hossain V s Bangladesh; 41 DLR(1989)364] But the reality is that even though it is unfortunate, it is true that these are just words. Just as no one takes these words into account, it doesn't enter anyone's ear. Even you hit your head on the rock and die, nobody cares.
On the contrary, the
registration department under the ministry of law doesn't care about these little!
There is a thumbs up to the orders of the government and all the responsibility
for what is done comes to an end here. The seeds of that mistake have been sown
through the documents created by the irregularities that took place there, as
the seed germinates, the poisonous stalks spread and cast a black shadow on the
unprotected boundaries of the land administration. No one wants an explanation
as to why the reforms are not being implemented and why the orders of the
government are
being ignored. If
the documents had been executed there according to the rules, the legal
complexity would have been greatly reduced. The updated registration law gives
clear instructions,
1) to have a record/ledger in the name of the seller in support of the latest ownership, but without the record publicity the deed of donation is being executed every day.
2) many plots are being transferred to a single plot by showing verbal compromise distribution without having a registered distribution in the share property. However according to the records the seller does not have the ownership of that amount of land in one plot. In this case, it always happens that, depriving other partners of valuable land and transferring it in the hope of gaining an unethical advantage. And if they do mutation on the basis of the document, you will be guilty even if you do not do it again. If you do, other co-sharers will tell you how you recommended naming after not having the same amount of ownership in the sold plot. And both the parties/ transferee will say why don't you recommend naming after having the registered document. However no one will raise the question, why the document that caused so much complexity was executed!
(3) Notwithstanding the obligation to execute the deed stating the amount of land sold, hand drawing map and clear boundaries description against the marked land, there are still multiple stains inside that blindness period deeds are being executed as per the partial amount of land sold. As a result there is a possibility that the land occupied by one person will be registered in the name of another. As can be seen in most cases when the buyer is asked about the occupation he cannot tell himself how much land is actually occupied in any given plot. In this case if you are asked to ask for an on the spot investigation or a survey report by a surveyor, harassment is being done in the hope of gaining unethical benefits. Even in such a situation, no one will say, why the document was not executed in the sub-registry office in accordance with the proper rules!
4) Many years ago the government said that four sets of deeds have to be submitted while executing the deeds. One of them will be given to the purchaser immediately and a copy will be sent to the AC land office. But there is probably no precedent for such a deed being executed anywhere. Due to non-receipt of deeds copy , forgery is constantly taking place in the certified copy. Some of it is being done through an organized cycle and some is being done by unscrupulous deed writers. For all intents
and purposes, this is the first opportunity, only the first and last pages of the certified copy are signed by the sub-registrar but a tick mark is given at the bottom instead of signing the remaining pages. As a result there is a simple opportunity to remove some pages from here and replace them with other pages. Secondly, if there is a provision for handwritten copy by the copyist and he does not do so. but instead of this it simply prints out a copy from the deed writers desktop folder and issues it as a certified copy. And because of the interdependence that develops between them, they are often issued without verification in good faith. In this many dishonest deed writers use this opportunity to forgery. When such an incident comes to light, all the responsibility falls on the copyist. On the other hand the main culprit remains out of reach. Moreover you have unknowingly made a mutation with that fake deed, well done! They will be accused always, as the main reason is suppressed! In this way they have to work with extreme uncertainty and great danger in their heads.
That is the
incarnation of this article, came after seeing a news item about the fake deed
published in a daily in our neighboring state of west Bengal. The only question
is if they can realize this crisis then why can't we!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
suman chowdhury
biku
lyricist, Radio
Bangladesh
e-mail: scbikuland@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment