District: Meherpur

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

   Present

Mr. Justice Sardar Md. Rashed Jahangir

Civil Revision No. 3798 of 1991

In the matter of :

Mohammad Rahamatullah Sheikh

… Petitioner

-Versus-

Government of Bangladesh and others

…Opposite-parties No one appears

…for the petitioner Ms. Rashida Alim Oeeshi, D.A.G with

Mr. Md. Habibur Rahman Sarker, A.A.G

  …For the opposite-party No. 1

Heard on: 30.10.2024 Judgment on: 03.11.2024

The Rule was issued on an application under section 115 of the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure  on  30.04.1989,  calling  upon  the opposite-party No. 1 to show cause as to why the judgment and decree  dated  11.03.1989  passed  by  the  Sub-ordinate  Judge, Meherpur in Title Appeal No. 107 of 1987 affirming those of dated 27.01.1987 passed by the Assistant Judge, Meherpur in Title Suit No. 20 of 1984 should not be set aside and/or such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Subsequently,  the  civil  revisional  application  has  been renumbered as Civil Revision No. 3798 of 1991(earlier number is C.R. No. 169 of 1989).

The civil revisional application is an old one of the year 1989 and neither the petitioner nor his learned Advocate took any initiative  to  hear  and  dispose  of  the  Rule  at  any  time  since issuance of the Rule on 30.04.1989. Under the order of Hon’ble Chief Justice of Bangladesh the Rule was sent to this Court to hear and dispose of.

No  one  appears  for  the  petitioner.  On  the  other  hand, learned Deputy Attorney General appears for the opposite-party No. 1 and made her argument.

Heard  learned  D.A.G,  perused  the  revisional  application together with the record.

It  appears  that  the  petitioner  as  plaintiff  on  19.02.1984 instituted Title Suit No. 20 of 1984 in the Court of Assistant Judge,  Meherpur  impleading  the  present  opposite-parties  as defendant for declaration of title and confirmation of possession contending,  inter-alia,  that  the  suit  land  appertaining  to  C.S. Khatian No. 102 of Mouza Anondabash under the Upazila and district  Meherpur  was  belonged  to  Medenipur  Zamindary Company Limited. The father of the plaintiff took settlement of the land from the Zamindar in the year 1356 B.S.. During S.A. operation the suit land was recorded in the Khas Khatian and upon getting the information about wrong recording in the year 1385 B.S. the plaintiff filed the suit.

The defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing written statements  denying  all  the  material  averments  of  the  plaint contending,  inter-alia,  that  the  suit  land  was  belonged  to Medenipur Zamindar and after operation of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, the property has been vested to the Government. The  property  in  question  is  situated  within  Khas  Beel  and accordingly, the name of Government in S.A. khatian was rightly recorded. The plaintiff has no right, title and possession over the suit land.

Learned Assistant Judge, Meherpur after hearing both the parties by his judgment and decree dated 27.01.1987dismissed the suit.

Being aggrieved the plaintiff took Title Appeal No. 107 of 1987 before the District Judge, Meherpur. Ultimately, the appeal was  heard  by  the  Sub-ordinate  Judge,  Meherpur  and  by  his judgment  and  order  dated  11.03.1989  dismissed  the  appeal affirming  those  of  dated  27.01.1987  passed  by  the  Assistant Judge, Meherpur.

On being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree of learned Subordinate Judge, Meherpur the plaintiff-petitioner filed this revisional application and obtained the Rule in the year 1989.

From  the  record,  it  appears  that  both  the  Courts  below concurrently found that the plaintiff miserably failed to prove his basic title i.e. the claimed settlement, allegedly taken from the Medenipur Zamindary Company Limited in the year 1356 B.S.. And it was also concurrently found that the suit land was not specified and or not specifically demarked and plaintiff failed to prove that he is in possession. The trial Court also found that the property in question is khas beel belongs defendant-Government.

Concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the Courts below on  the  basis  of  the  materials  on  record  is  immune  from interference in revision, unless there is misreading, misconstruing and non-consideration of material evidences on record.

I find nothing in the record to hold contrary enabling this Court to interfere into the concurrent findings of fact.

I find no merit in the Rule.

Accordingly, the Rule is discharged without any order as to

cost.

Send down the Lower Courts’ Record. Communicate the judgment and order at once.

Obaidul Hasan/B.O.