MINISTRY OF FISHERIES AND LIVESTOCKS Vs. OBAID JAGIRDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal at the instance of the defendant-petitioner arose out of the judgment and order dated 26th October, 2008, of a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.2027 of 2007 affirming those dated 7th September, 2006 of the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Sylhet in Title Appeal No. 102 of 2003 who affirmed those dated 13th April, 2003 of the learned Joint District Judge, Second Court, Sylhet in Title Suit No. 18 of 1990.

(2.) The petitioner instituted Title Suit No. 18 of 1990 in the 2nd Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sylhet for a declarations that the first schedule land is acquired land of the plaintiff and that the settlement in respect of second schedule land in favour of defendant No. 4 by defendant No.1 is illegal, void and collusive.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff, in short, is that the suit lands along with other lands originally belonged to Cattle Breeding cum Diary Farm, Sylhet, which is now under the Ministry of Fisheries and Livestocks, Government of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh and the land was acquired in L.A. Case No. 235 of 1930-31 from different persons. The plaintiff had been in possession of the suit land and at the time of settlement operation, the suit second schedule land was wrongly recorded in favour of Government as khas land and defendant No.4 disclosed in the locality that he took lease of the land from government. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant No.4 took the alleged settlement from the Ministry of Lands with the help of Government's officer collusively. The record of right in favour of government is absolutely wrong and collusive and the defendant No.4 can not claim the suit property on the basis of alleged settlement and the defendant No. 1 has no right, title and interest in the second schedule land. The Government by Memo No.532 dated 21st May, 1986, cancelled the alleged lease deed in favour of defendant No.4 and thereafter the plaintiff came to know that the aforesaid cancellation order had already been set aside. The preparation of record has created cloud in the plaintiffs title.