PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL)

1. Abrechai Mog
2. Suipruchai Marma
3. Mongthoiching Marma
4. Maraching Marma
5. Mongchinu Marma
6. Kraichanyon Mogini
7. Paimrasong Mogini
8. Apoapru Mogini

1. Joint District Judge, Khagrachari
2. Deputy Commissioner, Khagrachari
3. Additional Divisional Commissioner, Chittagong,
4. Member-2, Land Appeal Board
5. Assistant Commissioner (Land), Khagrachari
6. Chailapru Marma
7. Niyong Chowdhury
8. Sathong Chowdhury
9. Mongjasai Marma
10. Sujai Marma
11. Aungprue Marma
12. Hlathoi Marma
13. Apaise Marma
14. Ukroi Marma

The Petition concerned a question of whether dispute over succession in the Marma community will be resolved using the Hindu Dayabhaga Law or the social customs of the community. DogyoMog died leaving 24.30 acres of land, which was inherited by his daughters, Aowa and AbetuMogini. AowaMogini was mentally unstable and unmarried, so Abetu became the sole successor, and divided the property among her three daughters giving Kraynory 8.10 acres (1/3), Pusuma 10.00 acres (for she was looking after welfare of her disabled aunt Aowa) and gave remaining 6.20 acres to Aunkra, verbally settling that after Aowa’s death, 2.00 acres will revert to Aunkra. The cause of action arose when Aunkra died before the 2.00 acres were settled, thereby leading to a dispute in the distribution between subsequent heirs of all 3 sisters. Later in a case the Deputy Commissioner and ex-officio civil judge of Khagrachari without recognising the customary law and without inviting an opinion from the Headman, passed a judgment dated 22.09.1996 applying the Hindu Dayabhaga law. 

AbrechaiMog was the husband of two of the great granddaughters of Mr. Dogyo. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment they moved to the High Court Division for deciding a question of law whether customary law prevail over personal laws.

BLAST was added as an Intervenor on 12.06.2011 to assist the Court with information and application of the law in Chittagong Hill Tracts and other related matters.

The Court decided that the judgment given by Respondent No.2 on 22.09.1996 applying the Hindu DayabhagaLaw is without lawful authority having no mandate of law. Respondent No. 2 was directed to resolve the issue afresh on the basis of both the pleading parties and other relevant documents and in particular, upon consultation with the Circle Chief and Headman as envisaged in the Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulations 1900.

Mrs. Justice Farah Mahbub
Mr. Justice Abdur Rob