Md. Monir Hossain Patwari, Reporter || A decades-old dispute over 41 decimals of land in Nandipara, Dhaka, has resurfaced, with competing claims based on deeds registered in 1960 and 1971.The dispute has also raised questions over the mutation of the property and the legal basis of subsequent ownership claims. The matter is now pending before the Land Appeal Board at the revision stage.According to documents and information provided by one of the parties, the land falls under CS Dag No. 769 of Nandipara mouza. The recorded RS owner was Nirad Bala Das. It is claimed that Nirad Bala Das sold the 41 decimals to Rupchand Mondal and Gopichand Mondal through Deed No. 9292 on July 18, 1960, reportedly due to financial needs.Rupchand Mondal died in 1967. His son Ram Anand Mondal claims that he subsequently inherited the property and has remained in possession of the land for years. However, when Ram Anand sought mutation in his name, he found that the same property had already been mutated in favour of Eastern Housing Ltd.He later challenged the mutation through Miscellaneous Case Nos. 24/25 and secured mutation in his own name, according to his side. The records provided by him show that Mutation Case No. 12691 (IX-I) for the 2025–26 fiscal year was completed in his name on April 29, 2026.The 1971 deed raises questionsA major point of contention is Deed No. 7681, registered on September 21, 1971. Ram Anand's side alleges that Abdul Ali and others, associated with Alhaz Group, are claiming ownership of the disputed land on the basis of the deed.The key question raised by Ram Anand's side is how Lebuchan Mondal, the brother of Rupchand and Gopichand Mondal, could have sold the same property in 1971 if it had already been sold to Rupchand and Gopichand through the 1960 deed.They further claim that local elderly people and members of the Hindu community have said Lebuchan Mondal neither sold the land nor entered into any agreement to sell it. There are also allegations that fraudulent deeds were prepared during the Liberation War with the intention of taking over land belonging to Hindu owners.These allegations, however, require verification against the original 1971 deed, registration records, information on witnesses and contemporaneous land records.Allegations over pressure on land officialsRam Anand's side has also alleged that attempts are being made to cancel the mutation in his name by exerting pressure on the land office and the office of the Demra assistant commissioner (land). They further allege that misleading information has been circulated through social media and some media outlets to influence land officials.They have also alleged that Ram Anand was threatened and intimidated. The allegations could not be independently verified. The response of Abdul Ali and the other parties concerned would be necessary for a complete account of the dispute.Dispute reaches Land Appeal BoardA Miscellaneous Appeal, No. 438/2024, was filed before the Dhaka Divisional Commissioner (Revenue) over the ownership and mutation of the property. According to Ram Anand's side, the hearing was scheduled for September 22, 2026, but an order was issued on August 17, 2026, before the scheduled hearing.They have questioned the legality of the order and claimed that Ram Anand was not made a petitioner in the case. Ram Anand subsequently filed Revision Case No. 3-211/2026 before the Land Appeal Board in Dhaka, according to his representatives.Records hold the keyThe dispute essentially revolves around three documents—the 1960 Deed No. 9292, the 1971 Deed No. 7681 and the 2026 Mutation No. 12691 (IX-I). If the 1960 deed is found to be valid, questions remain as to how a subsequent ownership claim over the same property emerged. Similarly, the source of Lebuchan Mondal's ownership, if any, at the time of the 1971 transaction needs to be established.Ultimately, the ownership dispute can only be properly assessed by examining the complete chain of title, inheritance records, registration documents, mutation records and orders issued by the relevant land authorities. The allegations of pressure, intimidation or attempts to take possession of the land also warrant independent verification.