The Supreme Court on Monday was annoyed with and questioned a High Court ad-interim order that earlier in 2019 directed a sub-registrar of Brahmanbaria to register within seven days 119 acres of disputed tea garden land in favour of a dairy firm named Dutch Dairy Limited without hearing the opposite party.
What people would think about the High Court Division if it gives ‘full relief’ at the time of issuance of a rule without hearing, Horihor Tea State Ltd, the opposite party, observed a six-member bench chaired by chief justice Syed Mahmud Hossain.
The bench made the observations while hearing a civil petition filed by the Horihor Tea State Ltd challenging the High Court’s order.
The Appellate Division set Thursday for giving a decision on the matter.
According to the civil petition, the High Court bench of Justice Ashfaqul Islam and Justice Mohammad Ali on April 15, 2019 directed the sub-registrar for Bijoynagar Upazila in Brahmanbaria to register suf-kabala of Amit Chakraborti and Monisha Chakroborti in favour of Sreemoti Monisha Chokroborti, Amit Chakraborti and Dutch Dairy Firm for transferring 119.85 acres of land within seven days without failure.
The sub-order registrar on May 23 registered the deeds at the value of Tk 10.81 crore to comply with the directive of the court and the High Court’s directive was quoted in the registered deed.
The High Court bench issued the ad-interim order after a rule asking the sub-registrar for Bijoynagar Upazila to explain in four weeks why his refusal to register suf-kabala executed by Amit Chakraboriti and Monisha Chakroboriti on June 4, 2018 in favour of writ petitioners Sreemoti Monisha Chokroborti, Amit Chakraborti and Dutch Dairy Firm for transferring 119.85 acres of land would not be declared illegal.
The High Court issued the order and the ruling after hearing a writ petition filed jointly by Sreemoti Monisha Chokroboriti, Amit Chakraborti and Dutch Dairy Firm.
The ruling is waiting to be heard by the High Court.
Lawyers Sk Md Morshed and Md Asaduzzaman, appearing for the tea company, prayed for cancellation of the High Court order and ruling, saying that by passing the interim order at the time of the issuance of the rule, the High Court had given a full relief to the writ petitioners which was against the established and settled principle of the law decided by the Appellate Division in a number of cases.
Morshed, also an additional attorney general, appeared for the tea company in personal capacity, saying that the High Court had no jurisdiction to hear the writ petition involving civil matter.
Asked to reply whether the High Court can give the ‘full relief’ during the pendency of hearing of a rule seeking the relief, senior lawyer Qumrul Hoque Siddique, who appeared for Dutch Dairy Firm, told the court that he was not supporting the ad-interim order of the High Court.
‘The High Court was right in issuing the rule only,’ he added.
Qumrul said that he was not engaged in the High Court.
Lawyer Ali Murtaja appeared for Dutch Dairy Firm in the High Court.
The court also questioned the role of the deputy attorney general and two assistant attorneys general who were named in the order given by the High Court saying, ‘What they did?
Attorney general AM Amin Uddin, who was one of the participants in the online hearing, refrained from making any comments.
Supreme Court lawyer Al-Amin Sarkar, who had appeared in the case as deputy attorney general before the High Court on April 15, 2019 told New Age on Monday that the High Court’s bench could not give the final relief while issuing the rule.
Want stories like this in your inbox?
Sign up to exclusive daily email
More Stories from Country