Lands are scarce, expensive, and in high demand; most people want to own land for its future financial benefits. Buying and selling of land involves dealing with the government offices like the Sub-Registrar’s office or the Assistant Commissioner of Land. In the event of a land dispute, the judicial process can be very lengthy. The legal system allows the losing parties to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court, and the final decision can take a long time – sometimes decades. This process is stressful and frustrating. Actions are needed to improve this situation.
A dispute can stem from a variety of sources. Common causes of a land dispute include a new survey, the sale of the land to multiple buyers, or a forceful possession. Whatever the reasons for the dispute, once someone enters the judicial system, obtaining a final verdict is extremely time-consuming and burdensome.
Once a dispute enters the judicial process, it precludes both disputing parties from selling, developing, and transferring ownership until the Supreme Court resolves the issues in dispute. Nobody wants to buy a disputed land; no developer wants to develop it. Thus, people are compelled to stay in this smouldering entanglement. According to legal experts, a civil case related to a land dispute that originates in the lower court and ends up before the Supreme court, it takes around twenty years to reach a final disposal. During this time, many principal litigants die. Thus, their spouses or children drag the litigation. In most cases, the spouse or the children are unfamiliar with the court norms and procedures. Additionally, many children live overseas and feel an enormous pressure to carry on the suit initiated by their parents.
The existing system does not provide an opportunity for an expeditious disposal, given that the children live overseas and would have to return home to attend a hearing. The legacy claimants, meaning spouses or children who took over the lawsuit as heirs, must be given a speedy trial. Their cases must be disposed of as a priority, taking their circumstances into account. There is a precedent for such a speedy trial. For instance, a nefarious crime can be tried or transferred under the Speedy Justice system. The same kind of Speedy trial must be considered for the legacy litigators.
One may wonder why it takes so long to resolve a land dispute. The main reason for the delay in adjudicating a land lawsuit is that a few judges handle many cases, and a single judge is assigned to dispose of a colossal number of cases. Bangladesh has 2,307 judges for 18 crore people – one judge for every 78,023 citizens – one of the lowest judge to population ratios in South Asia. Due to the shortage of judges, backlogs and case loads are piling up. The reduction of litigation disposal is indispensable. Ways must be found to shorten the lengthy disposal process. From the lower court to the Supreme Court, the disposal target must be no more than ten years.
Appealing a district court’s verdict to the High Court in Dhaka city is costly, nettlesome, and onerous. Imagine someone who wants to appeal a verdict issued by the Cox’s Bazaar District Judge. The defendant needs to come to Dhaka to file an appeal with the High Court and hire a lawyer authorised to practice before the High Court. Subsequently, at the time of hearing, the litigant must arrive in Dhaka at least one day in advance with witnesses, stay at a hotel with them, and bear all the necessary expenses for the witnesses. This appealing process is gruelling and financially ruinous. However, there are practical ways to resolve this issue.
The late president H.M. Ershad realised this pain and suffering of justice seekers and seriously tried to set up High Court branches at the divisional level. At the end, he did not succeed in establishing High Courts outside of Dhaka. This failure happened over thirty years ago. In investment parlance, past performance does not guarantee future performance.
Once it failed does not mean that another attempt will be unsuccessful as well. The caretaker election-conducting system was gone, but now it has been resurrected. Therefore, utmost efforts must be given to revive the concept again considering the population increase, traffic gridlock, and the elapse of time.
The reduction of backlogs requires more recruitments of judges. Hence, it needs lots of funding. To generate funds, creative and pragmatic ways must be found. Therefore, a customer service-oriented approach needs to be adopted. One way is to charge higher court fees for a premium disposal; another is to charge a higher fee for an expeditious disposal; and other options include collecting more fees for a speedy disposal. Litigants will not mind paying a higher fee if they are assured of a settlement within a short period.
In Bangladesh, for example, a passport is issued quickly when someone pays an emergency fee, and people have no complaints about this service, even when it costs extra. The same practice can be replicated in the court system as well. In North America, people pay more to receive and send goods via private courier services like FedEx or DHL rather than the regular postal service. For convenience, some people are willing to pay a premium. Critics may argue that this arrangement – paying extra for expeditious services will benefit wealthier litigants. In reality, both parties will gain, as the funds collected through the additional fee can be used to reduce future backlogs by hiring more judges and covering their salaries.
The case backlogs and the excessive delay in receiving a final decree must be reduced. These agonising conditions should not be continued. Initiatives must be taken to provide relief to justice seekers. Thus, the optimal solution to address these perennial, pesky issues is to recruit an adequate number of judges and urgently establish High Court branches outside Dhaka. Once this is done, litigants’ pain and stress will be mitigated unambiguously.
The writer is a Payroll Compliance Practitioner in Vancouver, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
