Find a Lawyer

Petition No. 626 of 1966, decided on 22nd July 1968.

S. 7(1) read with Sched., Part 1, Section A‑Section 7(1) speaks only of "com pensation" and not of "fine" or any prohibitory order‑Conciliation Court imposing fine and also prohibiting petitioner from entering into disputed land‑Order, held, without legal authority‑Word "fine" in order, in absence of direction "to be paid to complainant"‑Cannot be read to mean "compensation".

In the present case the petitioner challenges an order of Conciliation Court sentencing petitioner to pay fine of Rs. 250 and also prohibiting him from entering into the disputed land.

Held : the exercise of the power to award compensation to the aggrieved party to be paid by the guilty one has been under section 7(1) of the Ordinance. Section 7(1) only speaks of "compensation" but not of "fine" or any prohibitory order. The order of the Conciliation Court, therefore, is without any legal authority. Hence the same cannot be sustained.

The expression "fine"' in the order of the Conciliation Court could be interpreted to be "compensation" if the order would have contained the further phrase "the fine to be paid to the complainant". Such a phrase is non‑existent in the order of the Conciliation Court.

The second part of the order of the Conciliation Court prohi biting the petitioner from entering into the land in dispute is wholly outside the scope of law and as such cannot be sustained.

Sultan Hossain Khan for Petitioner. .

A. Matin Khan Chowdhury for Respondent No. 3.

‑In this rule the petitioner has challenged an order of Conciliation Court of No. 10, Kaladah Union Council in the District of Mymensingh made on 10‑3‑1965 sentencing the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs. 250 and also prohibiting him from entering into the disputed land.

Upon a petition of respondent No. 3, the aforesaid Concili ation Court, by a majority judgment, imposed a fine of Rs. 250 on the petitioner before us on 10‑3‑65. This order is purported to have been made under section A of Part I of the Schedule to the Conciliation Courts Ordinance, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the Conciliation Court has not been empowered by the Ordinance either to impose any fine on any person or to prohibit by an injunction any person from entering into any land. All the power that a Conciliation Court has in a case of this nature is to award compensation to the aggrieved party to be paid by the guilty one. The exercise of the power has been under section 7 (1) of the Ordinance. Section 7 (1) only speaks of "compensation" but not of "fine" or any prohibitory order. The order of the Conciliation Court, therefore is without any legal authority. Hence the same cannot be sustained.

The learned Advocate for the respondent No. 3 argued that the application under Article 98 has been made nearly two years after the order was made, and as such it suffers from inordinate delay, and, therefore, should not be allowed to succeed. Secondly, he contended that the expression "fine" used in the order of the Conciliation Court really means "compensation" and it should be so interpreted. The expression "fine" in the order of the Conciliation Court could be interpreted to be "com‑ B pensation" if the order would have contained the further phrase "the fine to be paid to the complainant". Such a phrase is non existent in the order of the Conciliation Court and as such we cannot agree with the learned Advocate for the respondent No. 3 that the word "fine" really means "compensation". The learned Advocate for the respondent has been candid enough to say that the second part of the order of the Conciliation Court prohibit ing the petitioner from entering into the land in question is wholly outside the scope of law and as such cannot be sustained.

There being no authority vesting in the Conciliation Court to pass either the order of fine or the order of prohibition, the order as a whole is bad in law and must be set aside.

We accordingly make this Rule absolute and set aside the order of the Conciliation Court. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

‑I agree.

A. E

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.