IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

             Present:

Mr. Justice S M Kuddus Zaman

CIVIL REVISION NO.2140 OF 1991

In the matter of:

An application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

And

Ajit Kumar Mallick @ Majumder @ Majee being dead his heirs: Protap Chandra Majhi @ Majumder and others 

... Petitioners

-Versus-

Sailendra Nath Mollick and others

... Opposite parties

None appears

.... For the petitioners.

Ms. Purabi Saha, Advocate

…. For the opposite party No.1. Judgment on 12.11.2024.

This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.03.1991 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bagerhat in Title Appeal No.19 of 1986 reversing those dated 13.01.1986 passed by the learned Munsif, Mongla, Bagerhat in Title Suit No.202 of 1984 should not be set aside and or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Facts in short are that the opposite party as plaintiff instituted above suit for declaration that enlistment of disputed 5.53 acres land as vested  and  non  resident  property  and  leasing  out  of  the  same  to defendant Nos.1-4 vide Lease Case No.35 (R) of 1975-76 is illegal, void

and  not  binding  upon  the  plaintiff  and  for  a  decree  of  perpetual injunction.

Plaintiffs claimed title and possession in above land on the basis oral settlement by their predecessors from three sons of C. S. recorded tenant  Radacharan  in  Baisakh 1349 B.S.  and  above  property  having enlisted as enemy property filed Title Suit No.368 of 1956 and obtained decree by their predecessors on 20.03.1957

The  suit  was  contested  by  defendant  Nos.1-4  and  5  by  filing separate written statements alleging that plaintiffs predecessors did not take settlement of above land and above C.S. recorded tenants left this country for good for India before 1965 and the disputed property was rightly enlisted as vested and nonresident property and the defendants obtained  lease  of  the  same  from  the  Government  and  they  are  in peaceful possession of the same.

On  consideration  of  facts  and  circumstances  of  the  case  and evidence on record the learned Munsif dismissed above suit.

Being aggrieved by above judgment and decree of the trial Court plaintiffs preferred Title Appeal No.19 of 1986 to the District Judge, Bagerhat  which  was  heard  by  the  learned  Sub-ordinate  Judge  who allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and decreed the suit.

Being aggrieved by above judgment and decree of the Court of appeal below above respondents as petitioners moved to this Court and obtained this Rule.

No one appears on behalf of the petitioners at the time of hearing of this Rule although the matter appeared in the list for hearing on several dates.

Ms. Purubi Saha, learned Advocate for opposite party Nos.1 submits that disputed 4.69 acres land has been enlisted in the “Kha” schedule of the Arpito Sampatti Prottarpon Ain, 2012 and published in the official gazette on 19.05.2012. Since above property has been published in above gazette as Aripto Shampatti this Civil Revision has abated pursuant to Section 28Ka of the A¢fÑa pÇf¢š fËaÉ¡fZÑ BCe, 2012|

In  support  of  above  submissions  the  learned  Advocate  has produced the Bangladesh gazette published on 19.05.2012 Marked as Annexure No.1. As far as remaining 84.50 decimal land is concerned the learned Advocate submits that the learned Judge of the Court of Appeal has  on  an  independent  and  correct  analysis  of  evidence  on  record rightly  allowed  the  appeal  and  decreed  the  suit  which  calls  for  no interference.     

I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocate for the opposite parties and carefully examined all materials on record.

The opposite party as plaintiff instituted this Title Suit No.202 of 1984  in  the  Court  of  Munsif,  Mongla,  Bagerhat  for  declaration  that enlistment of disputed 5.50 acres land in the list of vested and non resident property is illegal and void. It appears from above Bangladesh Gazette dated 19.05.2012 that at serial No.47 and 50 in total 4.69 acre land  out  of  disputed  5.5350  acre  has  been  enlisted  in  the  “Kha” schedule of the Arpito Sompotti Parttarpon Ain, 2001. Section 28Ka of the A¢fÑa pÇf¢š fËaÉ¡fZÑ BCe, 2001  reads as follows:

""২৮ক।  (১)  অিপ ত স ি   ত প ণ  (ি তীয়  সংেশাধন)  আইন, ২০১৩  কায কর হইবার  সে   সে   অিপ ত স ি   স িক ত 'খ'  তফিসল বািতল  হইেব  এবং  উহা  এমনভােব  বািতল  হইেব  যন,  উ   তফিসলভ  স ি  কখেনাই অিপ তস ি র তািলকাভ  হয় নাই।

(২)  এই  আইেনর  অধীন  ািপত  াইবু নাল,  আপীল  াইবু নাল  বা িবেশষ  আপীল  াইবু নাল  কত ক উপ-ধারা  (১)  এর  অধীন  িবলু কত  'খ' তফিসলভ  স ি র িবষেয় ইেতামেধ  িন ি কত  য  কান মামলার রায় বা

িড ী বািতল ও অকায করবিলয়া গণ  হইেব এবং উ   াইবু নাল, আপীল

 াইবু নাল  বা  িবেশষ  আপীল  াইবু নােল  িবচারাধীন  উ   'খ  'তফিসলভ  স ি  স িক তসকল মামলা abate হইয়া যাইেব এবং এই প abatement এর জন  সংি  আদালত কত কআনু ািনক আেদশ  দােনর  েয়াজন হইেব না।

(৩) উপ-ধারা (১) এর অধীন বািতলকত 'খ' তফিসল স িক ত কান আেবদন বা নািলশ  জলা কিম ট, িবভাগীয় কিম ট বা  ক ীয় কিম টেত  য  কান পয ােয়ইথাকক না  কন উহা  য়ং য়ভােব বািতল হইয়া যাইেব।

(৪) উপ-ধারা (১) এর অধীন 'খ' তফিসল বািতল হওয়া সে ও উ  তফিসলভ  স ি েত সরকার বা  কান ব  র  কান  বা  াথ স েক  

 চিলত আইেনর অধীন  িতকার লােভ  কান আইনগত বাধা থািকেব না।

(৫) ধারা ২০ক িবলু  হওয়া সে ও উ  ধারার অধীন গ ঠত  কান িবেশষ আপীল  াইবু নােল 'ক' তফিসলভ  স ি  স িক ত কান মামলা িবচারাধীন  থািকেল  উহা  এমনভােব  চলমান  থািকেব  যন,  উ   াইবু নাল িবলু   হয়  নাই  এবং  উ   মামলায়  দ   িড ী  ধারা  ২  (ছ)  এর  উে শ  পূরণকে   দ  িড ী িহসােব গণ  হইেব।''

As such this proceeding under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has abetted as far as above “Kha” listed disputed 4.69 acre land is concerned.

This  proceeding  is  legally  maintainable  for  remaining  84.50 decimal land. Undisputedly 5.79 acre land of C.S. Khatian No.146 and 6.90 acre land of C.S. Khatian No.165 belonged to Nogendra Nath and Radha Charan in equal share. Above Radha Charan died leaving 3 sons namely Shoshodhor, Profulla and Ajit Kumar and their names were recorded rightly in R.S. Khatian Nos.318 and 270.

It was claimed by the plaintiff that above three brothers gave settlement of above land to the predecessors of the plaintiff namely Rajendra, Banka Beihari and plaintiff No.3 in Boishakh 1349 B.S. and the plaintiffs are in possession of above land but relevant S.A. khatian was  erroneously  recorded  in  the  name  of  the  above  landlords  and above land was enlisted as enemy property at their instance.

As  such  the  plaintiffs  filed  Title  Suit  No.368  of  1956  for declaration of their title and for further declaration that enlistment of above property as enemy property was illegal and not binding upon the plaintiffs and above suit was decreed on 20.03.1957.

At trial the plaintiff produced a certified copy of the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No.368 of 56 which was marked as Exhibit No.4 and in above judgment and decree besides determination of title of the plaintiff clear mention has been made that the enlistment of the suit property as enemy and nonresident property at the instance of above Shosodhar and others were unlawful and without any basis.

On a detailed analysis of the evidence on record the learned Judge of  the  Court  of  Appeal  below  held  that  plaintiffs  are  in  peaceful possession of the disputed land. It turns out from record that above findings  of  the  Court  of  Appeal  below  as  to  the  possession  of  the disputed land is based on evidence on record.

The plaintiffs secured a decree in Title Suit No.368 of 1956 from a competent Civil Court to the effect that the enlistment of the disputed property in the list of nonresident and enemy property was unlawful long before the promulgation of the  A¢fÑa pÇf¢š fËaÉ¡fZÑ BCe, 2001| The learned Judge of the Court of Appeal below on consideration of materials on record rightly allowed the appeal and decreed the suit which calls for no interference.  

In above view of the materials on record I am unable to find any infirmity  or  illegality  in  the  impugned  judgment  and  decree  of  the Court of Appeal below as far as it relates to disputed 84.50 decimal land nor I find substance in this revisional application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Rule issued in this connection is liable to be discharged in part.

In the result, the Rule is discharged in part.

The impugned judgment and decree dated 13.03.1991 passed by the  Subordinate  Judge,  Bagerhat  in  Title  Appeal  No.19  of  1986  is affirmed  for  disputed  84.50  decimal  land  and  for  the  remaining disputed land this proceeding stands abetted.

However, there is no order as to costs.

Send down the lower Courts records immediately.

MD. MASUDUR RAHMAN     BENCH OFFICER