MD. MOZAFFER RAHMAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Petition for Leave to Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated the 29th day of July, 2008 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.2447 of 2000 discharging the Rule and affirming those dated 24.03.1999 passed by the Subordinate Judge, 1st Court of Zilla Joypurhat, in Other Class Appeal No.61 of 1996 and those dated 23rd day of July, 1998 passed by the Assistant Judge, Joypurhat in Other Class Suit No. 23of 1997.

(2.) The facts involved in the case, in short, are that the land recorded in C.S. Khatian No.2 originally belonged to Penendu Narayan Roy Dev Barmon and his name has been recorded in C.S. Khatian No.2 of the suit mouza; that the ex-landlord has given settlement of the suit land in favour of one Darkanath Dev and others but for arrears of rents ex-landlord has taken back the land in his khas possession from the aforesaid tenants. On 27.11.1951 B.S. the predecessor of the plaintiff namely Kalimuddin Mondal took pattan of the suit land as described in schedule 'Ka' of the plaint from the aforesaid ex-landlord; that since the date of pattan the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs has been possessing the suit land measuring .24 acres of land with another .04 acres of land from another non suited plot but adjoining to the-suit plot; that after the abolishment of zamindary system the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs became direct tenant of the Government and the Government recognized him as tenant of the suit land by realizing rents from him; that during the period of M.R.R. operation the suit land recorded in the name of predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs in M.R.R. Khatian No. 14; that thereafter, Kalimuddin died leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs and since then the plaintiffs have been possessing the suit land for more than 12(twelve) years; that in the recent revislonal record of right, the suit land has been recorded in R.S. Khatian No. 1327; that the plaintiffs went to local Tahsil office for paying rents of the suit plot No.698 but the Tahsil office refused to take rents from them because plot No.698 was not recorded in M.R.R. Khatian 14; that thereafter, the plaintiffs went to defendant No.2, for correction of the record of right but he advised them to take shelter in the Civil Court; that on refusal to accept rents from the plaintiffs by the office of the defendant No.2 the right, title of the plaintiffs over the suit land has been clouded, hence the suit.

(3.) The defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing written statement stating, inter-alia, that the suit is not maintainable; that the suit is barred by limitation; that the suit is hit by Section 42 S.R. Act and it suffers from nonjoinder of parties. The case of the defendant is that the suit land measuring .28 decimals of land was recorded in the name of the Government is S.A. Khatian No.1 and an area of .37 acres of land has been recorded in plot No.698 under Khatian No.267 in the name of Braza Madhab Dev and others; that the recorded tenants left the country and consequently, the land was enlisted as vested property; that the plaintiffs have brought the suit on the basis of false allegations with a view to grab the suit land. So, the suit is liable to be dismissed.