PRESENT:

(From the judgment and order dated 13.03.2017 passe d by this  Division  in  Civil  Petition  for  Leave  to  Appeal

No.2767 of 2015).

Government of the People’s Republic of  : ....Appellants. Bangladesh,  represented  by  the

Secretary, Ministry of Land, Ban gladesh

Secretariat, Dhaka and others.

-Versus-

Md. Abdul Malek and others.  : ....Respondents.

For the Appellants.  : Mr.  A.  M.  Amin  Uddin,  Attorney

General  (with  Mr.  Mohammad  Saiful

Alam, Assistant Attorney General),

instructed  by  Mr.  Haridus  Paul , Advocate-on-Record.

For the Respondents.  : Mr.  Bivash  Chandra  Biswas ,

Advocate-on-Record.

Date of Hearing. : The 11th May, 202 3.

Date of Judgment. : The 11 th May, 2023.

  This  civil  appeal  by  leave  granting  order

dated 10.01.2019 in Civil Review Petition No.691 of 2017 is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated

13.03.2017 passed by this Division in Civil Petitio n for

Leave to Appeal No.2767 of 2015 disposing of the ci vil petition.

Background  of  the  case  is  that  the  suit  land

comprising  an  area  of  114.50  acres  in  C.S.  Plot  No. 4 under  C.S.  Khatian  No.360  and  S.A.  Khatian  No.494/1  of Mouza-Jagohati  within  the  Police  Station-Kotwali,

District-Jashore was known as ‘Jagohati Baor’ belon ged to Raja  Krishna  Das  Laha.  After  abolition  of  Zamindary

system said Baor became khas land of the Government and the people of the area have been using the suit lan d i.e. the  ‘Baor’  for  various  purposes  including  fishing.  One Abadi  Paroi  and  others  instituted  Title  Suit  No.110  of 1969  for  declaration  of  title  and  confirmation  of

possession in the suit land and also for declaratio n that the soleh decree in Rent Suit No.217 of 1956 passed  by the 3 rd  Munsif Court, Jashore, is forged and not binding

upon the plaintiffs and the suit was dismissed on c ontest by the learned Subordinate Judge, Jashore vide judg ment and  decree  dated  25.08.1970.  Being  aggrieved,  the

plaintiffs of the suit preferred First Appeal No.16 0 of 1981  before  the  High  Court  Division  which  was  also

dismissed  vide  judgment  and  decree  dated  28.06.2000 . Since then, Government remained owner of the suit l and.

Thereafter, one Serajul Islam and 49 others filed a n application  being  numbered  as  Miscellaneous  Case

No.12/XIII of 2004-2005 to the respondent no.6 Addi tional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Jashore praying to r ecord the suit schedule ‘Baor’ as khas khatian in light o f the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.110 of  1969 and First Appeal No.160 of 1981 and settle the same  in their  favour  to  rear  fish  and  doing  business.  The

opposite  parties  contested  the  miscellaneous  case  b y filing a written objection, stating interalia, that S.A. Khatian not prepared in the name of the Government  rather prepared  in  the  name  of  their  predecessor  and  they

inherited  the  same  and  also  possessing  the  land  on

payment of rents.

After  contested  hearing  the  Additional  Deputy

Commissioner  (Revenue),  Jashore  allowed  the  said

miscellaneous  case  vide  order  dated  19.03.2008  and

declared the suit land as khas land of the Governme nt and directed to record it in Khatian No.1. Against the  order opposite parties of the miscellaneous case as appel lants filed  Miscellaneous  Appeal  No.227  of  2008  before  th e respondent  no.4  Additional  Divisional  Commissioner,

Khulna  Division,  Khulna,  who  by  order  dated  10.11.2 008 dismissed  the  miscellaneous  appeal.  Then  the  appell ants filed Appeal Case No.5-139 of 2008 (Jashore) before the respondent no.2 Land Appeal Board, Dhaka, which was also dismissed vide order dated 07.01.2009 with the foll owing observation:

ÒcÖZxqgvb nq †h, gnvgvb¨ nvB‡Kv‡U© weÁ mveRR Av`vj‡Zi Title Suit

No.110 of 1969 †Z weÁ Av`j‡Zi findings mn judgment

and decree  envj ivLv n‡q‡Q| gnvgvb¨ nvB‡Kv‡U©i D³ Av‡`k DaŸ©Zb Av`vjZ KZ…©K evwZj/i` iwnZ bv nIqv ch©šÍ P~ovšÍ wnmv‡eY ¨ M| Kv‡RB bvwjkx m¤úwˇZ ev`x ev weev`x †Kvb c‡ÿiB ¯^Z¡ cÖwZwôZ bv nIqvq †Rjv cÖkvmb KZ…©K ivóªxq AwaMÖnY I cÖRv¯^Z¡ AvBb Gi 92 avivi weavb g‡Z bvwjkv m¤úwˇK miKvwi

Lvm m¤úwË wnmv‡e †NvlYvmn cÖ`Ë Av‡`k h_vh_|Ó

The  appellants  as  writ-petitioners  invoked

jurisdiction  under  Article  102  of  the  Constitution

challenging the order dated 07.01.2009 passed by th e Land Appeal Board in Appeal Case No.05-139 of 2008 (Jash ore).

Upon hearing the writ-petitioners, a Division Bench

of the High Court Division issued a Rule Nisi upon  the respondents to show cause.

After contested hearing, a Division Bench of the Hi gh Court  Division  made  the  Rule  absolute  and  declared  the order dated 07.01.2009 passed by the Land Appeal Bo ard in Appeal  Case  No.5-139  of  2008  (Jashore)  to  have  been passed without lawful authority and is of no legal  effect vide judgment and order dated 22.01.2014.

Being aggrieved, the writ-respondents as petitioner s preferred Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.276 7 of 2015  before  this  Division  invoking  Article  103  of  t he Constitution.

Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the respectiv e parties, this Division disposed of the Civil Petiti on for Leave to Appeal No.2767 of 2015 vide judgment and o rder dated 13.03.2017 holding that:

“We have considered the orders passed by the Member  f~wg Avcxj †evW©, the Additional Divisional Commissioner, Khulna, the Additional Deputy Commissioner  (Revenue),  Jashore  and  the materials filed with the leave petition. We

maintain  the  judgment  and  order  passed  by

the High Court Division so far as it relates

to the nature of the land in question and we

further hold that the nature of the land in

question shall have nothing to do with the

title of the parties therein.

With the above observation this petition is disposed of.”

Feeling  aggrieved,  writ-respondent-petitioner  as

petitioners  preferred  Civil  Review  Petition  No.691  of 2017 before this Division invoking under Article 10 5 of the Constitution.

After hearing learned Advocates for the parties, th is Division granted leave vide order dated 10.01.2019.

Consequently, instant civil appeal arose.

Mr.  A.  M.  Amin  Uddin,  learned  Attorney  General

appearing  for  the  appellants  submits  that  the  order s passed  by  the  respondent  no.6,  the  respondent  no.4  and finally by respondent no.2 Land Appeal Board pursua nt to judgment  and  decree  of  Title  Suit  No.110  of  1969  an d First Appeal No.160 of 1981 dismissing the suit as  well as the appeal, both in civil jurisdiction, and as s uch there is no scope to decide the nature of the case  land and title thereof in writ jurisdiction but the High Court Division  has  not  considered  the  same  and  therefore  the appeal  may  be  allowed.  He  next  submits  that  the

Additional  Deputy  Commissioner  (Revenue)  found  the  suit

land as ‘Baor’ and said order have been affirmed by the Additional  Deputy  Commissioner  and  Land  Appeal  Boar d respectively  but  the  High  Court  Division  in  writ

jurisdiction illegally decided classification of th e case land  as  agricultural  land  relying  upon  the  decision  in Miscellaneous  Case  No.18  of  1964-1965  filed  by  Sudh ir Kumar Roy for mutation of 4.79 acres of land, which was not  a  proceeding  to  decide  classification  of  the  sa id land  and  therefore  this  Division  committed  an  error

apparent on the face of the record in Civil Petitio n for Leave  to  Appeal  No.2767  of  2015  upholding  the  judgm ent and  order  of  the  High  Court  Division  and  as  such  th e judgment and order passed by this Division required to be reviewed and the appeal may kindly be allowed.

On the other hand Mr. Bivash Chandra Biswas, learne d Advocated-on-record  appearing  on  behalf  of  the

respondents supports the impugned judgment and orde r. 

Heard the learned Advocate for the appellants and t he respondents.  Perused  the  papers/documents  contained  in the paper book.

It  appears  from  record  that  one  Abadi  Paroi  and

others  instituted  Title  Suit  No.110  of  1969  against

Sudhir  Kumar  and  others  before  the  learned  Subordin ate Judge, Jashore for declaration of title and confirm ation of possession over the suit land and also for decla ration that the soleh decree in Rent Suit No.217 of 1956 p assed by the 3 rd  Munsif Court, Jashore is forged and not binding

upon the plaintiffs. The suit was dismissed on meri t vide judgment  and  decree  dated  25.08.1970  by  the  learned

Subordinate Judge, Jashore. Against the said judgme nt and decree,  plaintiffs  as  appellants  preferred  First  Ap peal No.160 of 1981 before the High Court Division which was also dismissed on contest vide judgment and decree  dated 28.06.2000. None of the parties of said suit moved  before the  Appellate  Division  against  the  judgment  and  dec ree passed by the High Court Division in First Appeal N o.160 of 1981. Thereafter, one Serajul Islam and others  praying before the respondent no.6 Additional Deputy Commis sioner (Revenue), Jashore to record the suit schedule ‘Bao r’ as khas khatian in light of the judgment and decree pa ssed in Title Suit No.110 of 1969 and First Appeal No.16 0 of

1981 and settle the same in their favour to rear fi sh and doing  business,  which  was  registered  as  Miscellaneo us Case No.12/XIII of 2004-05. Some of the writ petiti oners as  opposite  parties  contested  the  said  miscellaneou s case.  The  Additional  Deputy  Commissioner  (Revenue),

Jashore allowed the said miscellaneous case and dec lared the suit land as khas land of the Government and th ereby directed to record it in khatian no.1 vide order da ted 19.03.2008. Against the said order, the writ petiti oner- opposite  parties  as  appellants  filed  an  appeal  bein g Appeal  No.227  of  2008  under  Section  147  of  the  Stat e Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 before the respon dent no.4,  Additional  Divisional  Commissioner,  Khulna

Division,  Khulna.  After  contested  hearing,  Addition al Divisional  Commissioner,  Khulna  Division,  Khulna

dismissed  the  appeal  vide  order  dated  10.11.2008.

Thereafter, the writ-petitioners as appellants pref erred an appeal being Appeal No.5-139 of 2008 before resp ondent no.2  Land  Appeal  Board,  Dhaka,  who  dismissed  the  sa id appeal vide order dated 07.01.2009.

It also transpires from the record that Abdul Malek

and others as petitioners invoked writ jurisdiction under Article  102  of  the  Constitution  challenging  the  ord er dated  07.01.2009  passed  by  the  Land  Appeal  Board  in

Appeal Case No.5-139 of 2008(Jashore) and after con tested hearing a Division Bench of the High Court Division made the  Rule  absolute  vide  judgment  and  order  dated

22.01.2014,  which  is  impugned  herein.  It  is  pertine nt here to mention that the suit schedule land of Titl e Suit No.110 of 1969 and subject matter of the writ petit ion from  which  instant  civil  appeal  arose  is  same  and

identical.

On perusal of the memo of writ petition it is evide nt that the basis of the claim of writ petitioners is  that they had purchased the suit land from Sudhir Kumar  and others. Said Sudhir Kumar was the defendant no.1 of the Title  Suit  No.110  of  1969  filed  before  the  learned

Subordinate Judge, Jashore which was decided on mer it by the trial court as well as by the High Court Divisi on in First Appeal. Thus it appears that the writ petitio ners are  litigating  in  this  case  under  the  title  of  said

Sudhir Kumar and others relating to a portion of la nd for which a previous suit was instituted and same was d ecided on merit between the parties both by the trial cour t and the High Court Division in civil jurisdiction. The  trial court dismissed Title Suit No.110 of 1969 with a fi nding that the dhakilas produced by the defendants are cr eated and forged and the defendants failed to establish t heir

title and possession over the suit land holding tha t:

“From the discussions made above I find both the  parties  have  no  interest  and  legal possession in the suit land.”

(Sic)

The High Court Division while affirming the judgmen t and decree of Title suit No.110 of 1969 in First Ap peal No.160 of 1981 vide judgment and decree dated 28.06 .2000 observed that:

“The impugned judgment is an elaborate and speaking  judgment.  The  trial  court  has discussed  the  evidence  on  record  in  great details  and  we  are  not  inclined  to  repeat

the same all over again.

All that we find that the basis of claim of

title  and  possession  of  the  plaintiff- appellants is that they had taken settlement

of the suit property from the landlord but they  have  failed  to  prove  the  same.

Therefore, the findings of the trial court

that  the  plaintiffs  have  failed  to  prove their case is factually and legally correct

and  we  are  not  inclined  to  interfere  with the  findings  of  the  court  below.  The findings are based on evidence on record and legally sound. The suit has correctly been decided.  The  plaintiff-appellants  are  not entitled to get a decree, as prayed for and

the trial court has correctly dismissed the suit.”

(Sic) By now it is settled that the parties litigating o ver

the  self-same  land  are  bound  by  the  decision  of  a

previously instituted suit/case in civil jurisdicti on and application under Article 102 of the Constitution i s not maintainable relating to title of the parties which was decided in civil jurisdiction.

Again,  it  is  also  settled  that  there  should  be

finality of litigation and if a decided matter is b rought before  the  court  again  and  again  that  will  create

multiplicity of proceedings as well as chance to ar rive at a conflicting decision which is neither desirabl e nor permissible in law.

The Supreme Court of India in the case of  K. Jayaram and  Ors.  vs.  Bangalore  Development  Authority  and  Or s. , reported in (2021) 9 SCR 359, held:

“The finding of the High Court has attained finality and the writ court cannot sit in an appeal over the judgment passed by the High Court in the appeal. The conclusions reached by the court in the appeal  are binding on the Appellants.”

Again,  The  Supreme  Court  of  India  in  the  case  of

Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Ors . vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. , reported in (2008) 1 SCC

560, held:

“This  court  has  reiterated  that  the  writ remedy  is  an  equitable  one  and  a  person approaching a superior court must come with

a  pair  of  clean  hands.  Such  person  should not  suppress  any  material  fact  but  also should  not  take  recourse  to  legal proceedings  over  and  over  again  which amounts to abuse of the process of law.”

Further  to  avoid  the  conflicting  decision  of  the

court,  the  Apex  Court  of  India  in  the  case  of  India Household  and  Healthcare  Ltd.  vs.  LG  Household  and

Healthcare Ltd. , reported in (2007) 5 SCC 510, observed:

“The doctrine of comity or amity required a court not to pass an order which would be in conflict  with  another  order  passed  by  a competent court of law.”

From  the  above  discussions  and  the  principle

enunciated in the cited cases, we are of the view t hat the  decision  of  competent  court  of  civil  jurisdicti on shall be final in the case of declaration of title  and confirmation of possession as well as classificatio n of the  land  and  the  High  Court  Division  under  writ

jurisdiction cannot sit as an appellate forum again st the judgment and decree passed by the High Court Divisi on in civil  jurisdiction  and  if  does  so  that  will  amount  to abuse  of  the  process  of  law  which  will  create

multiplicity of proceedings as well as chance to ar rive at a conflicting decision.

Thus  it  appears  that  as  the  writ  petitioners

litigating  under  the  title  of  Sudhir  Kumar  who  was

defendant  no.01  in  previously  instituted  Title  Suit

No.110 of 1969 and in that title suit the very clai m of Sudhir Kumar was not established both in trial cour t as well as in the High Court Division in first appeal  and none of the parties of that title suit moved before the Appellate  Division  as  such  the  decision  passed  by  t he trial  court  in  Title  Suit  No.110  of  1969  which  was

affirmed  by  the  High  Court  Division  in  First  Appeal

No.160 of 1981 has attained finality and the petiti oners of the writ petition is bound by that decision inas much as they are litigating over the self-same matter. B ut the High  Court  Division  as  well  as  this  Division  withou t considering this legal and factual aspect made the  Rule absolute in Writ Petition No.2405 of 2019 and dispo sed of the Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.2767 of 2 015 respectively, which calls interference by this Divi sion.

Under the facts and circumstances of the case and  the discussions  made  hereinabove,  we  are  inclined  to  al low the appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.

The impugned judgment and order dated 22.01.2014 an d 13.03.2017  passed  by  the  High  Court  Division  in  Wri t Petition No.2405 of 2010 and by this Division in Ci vil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.2767 of 2015 respec tively are hereby set-aside.

No order as to costs.

J.

J.

J. J. J. J.

The 11 th May, 2023 . Jamal/B.R./Words-*2729*