The Tribunal’s Jurisdiction Over the Correction of Alluvion Land Records
Rajib Kumar Deb : One logical question is whether a Land Survey Tribunal, in deciding a suit over alluvion land, must examine a Revenue Officer’s compliance with the statutory procedures under Section 86 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950, the Bengal Alluvion and Diluvion Regulation, 1825 (Regulation XI of 1825), and the State Acquisition Rules, 1951, where doing so may require the issue of determining title and thus raise a question about the Tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction.
However, this issue assumes particular significance as it is often argued that the Revenue Officer’s failure to discharge statutory compliance over alluvion disputes may effectively lead to a determination of title that does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, but should rather be adjudicated by a civil court. The issue further concerns whether the Tribunal may adjudicate such matters when the law expressly assigns these functions to the Revenue Officer.
Substantive Rights and Administrative Compliance
Land previously lost by diluvion and subsequently reformed and emerged from the river as alluvion land—whether accreted or reformed land, or land gained from the river bed, or in any other natural form on the basis of reformation in situ, gradual and imperceptible accretion, and sudden change—when possessed and used as private land, continues to vest in the original owner or his successors.
It is noteworthy that the Revenue Officer’s compliance comes into play where a tenant’s land is lost by river erosion (diluvion); the Revenue Officer (Collector), upon an application made by the tenant, shall follow statutory procedures to grant a proportional abatement or remission of rent or land development tax. After taking possession, the Collector is required to issue a public notice, conduct a survey, prepare maps, and allot the land to the original tenant or his successors, subject to the 45-day period and the 60-standard-bigha ceiling.
Interestingly, the State Acquisition Rules, 1951, framed under Sections 78 and 152 of the Act, contain no administrative procedures for alluvion lands. They do not prescribe requirements for recording diluvion loss, issuing possession notices, hearing objections, maintaining records, preparing surveys and maps, or allotting or settling such lands with tenants or successors.
In these circumstances, a contrary argument may be advanced that a claimant of alluvion land is legally entitled to seek correction of the Records-of-Rights before the Tribunal, which has jurisdiction to adjudicate such disputes where statutory requirements and administrative procedures have not been followed by the authority.
The Extent of Tribunal Jurisdiction and Admissible Evidence
The extent of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over alluvion land requires careful scrutiny. Its jurisdiction is limited to the correction of entries in the Records-of-Rights (Khatian), including B.S., R.S., and B.R.S. records. While adjudicating such disputes, the Tribunal may consider title, possession, and relevant evidence only to determine the correctness of survey entries, including the claimant’s prior tenancy status, continuity of possession, and identification of the reformed land.
Such determinations must be based on admissible evidence, including maps, survey records, and commissioners’ reports. Successive Records-of-Rights (C.S., S.A., R.S., B.S./City Survey) are vital evidence for determining continuity of possession, land lost by diluvion, land re-formed in situ, and accretion beyond the original boundaries.
Furthermore, the Tribunal may examine the S.A. Survey records in the claimant’s name, or that of their predecessor or previous owner, to assess antecedent possession and continuity of rights over the alluvion land. Sections 3 and 17 of the SAT Act recognize S.A. raiyats as tenants directly under the Government and preserve their tenancy rights.
The Tribunal may conduct a Local Investigation or Inspection under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Tribunal may also collect video footage, constituting electronic evidence within the applicability of Sections 3 and 65A–65B of the Evidence Act. After addressing authenticity and reliability issues, such evidence and commission reports may be considered to determine the location, use, and nature of the disputed alluvion land, including whether the claim is a device for the unlawful grabbing of Government land.
Addressing the Administrative Procedural Vacuum
Consequently, although the Collector is under statutory responsibilities to comply with the mandatory procedures prescribed by law, no authority or procedural mechanism has yet been provided enabling the Collector to initiate proceedings or dispose of alluvion land administratively. Due to this procedural vacuum, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider how compliance with Section 86 can be established when the Rules provide no mechanism for implementation.
Such an administrative procedural vacuum cannot be pleaded before the Tribunal, which is a judicial forum, as a ground to deny justice to the tenant-justice seeker or his successors by contending that they, in a Land Survey Tribunal (LST) suit, are not entitled to relief before the Tribunal and should instead seek a remedy before the Revenue Officer. This vacuum not only impairs the claimant’s ability to establish his claim through credible and contemporaneous evidence, but also creates apprehensions regarding encroachment by land grabbers.
Furthermore, recourse to the civil court should ordinarily be avoided, as its jurisdiction generally arises only after the Collector has acted in accordance with the prescribed procedure governing alluvion land and made a determination thereof. Until that statutory process is completed, invoking the Civil Court’s jurisdiction is premature and unnecessary.
Conclusion
To sum up, the Tribunal may lawfully exercise its jurisdiction in adjudicating alluvion disputes without denying the claimants’ substantive legal status. Such disputes should instead be considered within the context of an existing administrative procedural vacuum, which necessitates judicial intervention to ensure access to an effective remedy and to prevent a denial of justice.
The author is a Member of the Bangladesh Judicial Service.
