IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed

Civil Revision No. 59 of 1997 Abdus Salam and others

...Petitioners -Versus-

Government  of  Bangladesh  represented  by  the Deputy Commissioner, Moulvibazar and another

.…Opposite parties

None

....For the petitioners Ms. Shahida Khatoon, with

Mr. Sovan Mahmud, and

Khandaker Asma Hamid, AAGs

......For the opposite parties

Heard on: 29.10.2024, 05.11.2024 and 26.11.2024 Judgment on: 04.12.2024

The instant Rule issued on 08.01.1997 is directed against the judgment  and  decree  dated  29.06.1996  passed  by  the  learned Additional District Judge, Moulvibazar in Title Appeal No. 106 of 1986 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 20.03.1986 (decree signed on 31.03.1986) passed by the learned Munsif,  Baralekha,  Moulvibazar  in  Title  Suit  No.  37  of  1984 decreeing the suit.

The plaintiffs are the petitioners. Defendant No. 1 is the Thana Nirbahi  Officer,  Baralekha,  Moulvibazar  and  defendant  No.  2  is Deputy Commissioner, Moulvibazar.

The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title in the suit land and three shops constructed thereon by way of inheritance and further declaration that eviction notice dated 27.10.1977 issued by the defendant  No.  1  is  illegal  and  not  binding  upon  them  and  for permanent  injunction  restraining  the  defendants  from  evicting  the plaintiffs from the suit land and the shops constructed thereon and from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit land by the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 2 contested the suit by filing written statement.  The  defendant  did  not  examine  any  witness  but  cross- examined the PWs.

The case of the plaintiffs, in short, is that the suit land and other lands were owned by their predecessor Basir, Hanif and Hazir by dint of purchase on 11 Chaitra, 1270 BS. The nature of the suit land is chandina vitti which is situated in a bazar. The plaintiffs’ predecessors constructed small shops on the suit land which have been inherited by the plaintiffs. The suit land is not a khas land. However, defendant No. 2 issued the eviction notice dated 27.10.1977 on the plaintiffs directing them to vacate the suit land treating the same as khas land.

The case of the contesting defendant No. 2 is that the nature of the suit land is hat bazar and the same was not included in the kabala dated 11 Chaitra, 1270 B.S.

The trial Court decreed the suit holding that the suit land is not situated in a hat or bazar as per definition of hat or bazar given in Section 2(12) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 and as such, Section 20(2)(a) does not apply to the case.

The  appellate  Court  below,  on  the  other  hand,  allowed  the

appeal holding that the suit land and shops constructed thereon fall

with the definition of hat or bazar and as such, the eviction notice was

rightly issued. The appellate Court below further held that although

the plaintiffs claimed title in the suit land by way of inheritance but

nothing is stated in the plaint as to the chronology of chain of title

regarding the devolvement of title in the land on the plaintiffs. Appeal

Court observed, “h¡c£ fr j¡w q¡¢S­ll Ju¡¢ln ¢qp¡­h e¡¢mn£ pÇf¢š­a üaÄ c¡h£ L¢l­mJ a¡q¡­cl p¢qa Eš² j¡w q¡¢S­ll ¢L pÇfLÑ ¢Rm h¡ Eš² j¡w q¡¢Sl j¡l¡ k¡Ju¡l

fl ®L h¡ L¡q¡l¡ a¡q¡l Ju¡¢ln ¢R­me ®p pÇf­LÑ h¡c£fr Bl¢S­a ®L¡e p¤ØfÖV hš²hÉ l¡­Me e¡Cz ac¡hØq¡u j¡w q¡¢S­ll Ju¡¢ln ¢qp¡­h h¡c£NZ e¡¢mn£ pÇf¢š f¡Cu¡­Re h¢mu¡ h¡c£fr ®k hš²hÉ l¡¢M­a Q¡­qe a¡q¡ AØfÖV Hhw Eš² AØfÖV hš²­hÉl ¢i¢š­a h¡c£NZ B­c± Eš² j¡w q¡¢S­ll Ju¡¢ln ¢R­me ¢Le¡ a¡q¡ fËj¡¢Za qu e¡z Cq¡R¡s¡ Eiu f­rl ü£L¡l j­a e¡¢mn£ c¡­Nl pÇf¢š ¢hNa plL¡l£ S¢lf Bj­m h¡S¡l ®nËZ£ ¢qp¡­h ®lLXÑ qCu¡­Rz ”

The trial Court did not address the issue as to chain of title of the plaintiffs in the suit land. It simply held that the suit land does not fall  within  the  category  of  hat  or  bazar  without  referring  to  the evidence on record. The appeal Court, on the other hand, referred to the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and came to the conclusion that the suit land and shops situate in hat or bazar. On going through the materials on record this Court finds that the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court is based on evidence on record and proper appreciation of facts and law. Therefore, the Rule fails.

In the result, the Rule is discharged. The judgment and decree of appellate Court below are affirmed.

Send down the L.C.R.

Mazhar, BO