GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH Vs. ABDUL MOTALEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals, by leave, by the plaintiff arise out of the judgment and order dated 23.07.2002 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision Nos.3863,4612 and 4613 of 1998 making all the Rules absolute by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 04.06.1998 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patuakhali in Title Appeal Nos.5, 87 and 116 of 1992 reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1991 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Patuakhali in Title Suit No.111 of 1987.

(2.) Civil Appeal Nos.185, 186 and 187 of 2004 have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment as they do involve common questions of laws and facts.

(3.) The facts, leading to the filing of these appeals, in short, are that Abdul Motaleb and 36 others as the plaintiffs instituted the instant suit for declaration of their title in the suit land described in the schedule to the plaint. The land covering an area of 43 acres appertaining to R.S. Khatian No.157 originally belonged to Lamio Matbar to the extent of 8 annas share and Khemari Mongi and Chamakhi Mongi to the extent of 2 and 6 annas shares respectively. The Revenue Officer by an order dated 03.04.1953 made 17.79 acres of land as khas out of the share belonging to Lamio Matbar in Miscellaneous Case No.09 of 1952 under section 20 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act and the remaining .372 acre was duly recorded in his name in S.A. Khatian No.240. The shares of Khemari and Chamakhi Mongi were recorded in the S.A. Khatian No.142. Against the decision of making khas, Lamio Matbar preferred an appeal before the learned Special Judge, Bakergonj, who on consideration of the evidence on record set aside the order passed by the Revenue Officer. The Additional Collector, Bakergonj by an order dated 12.07.1955 in Miscellaneous Case No.192/55-56 directed to realize the rent from Lamio Matbar for those lands. He also directed not to disturb the possession of Lamio Matbar in those 17.79 acres of land. Subsequently, the Revenue Officer corrected the Khatian in Miscellaneous Case No.30 of 1977-78. The plaintiffs purchased the suit land from Lamio Matbar and had their names recorded in the khatian between 1956 and 1963. In 1987 some of the defendants claimed that they had taken settlement of the suit land from the Government denying the title of the plaintiffs to the suit land and hence the plaintiffs have been constrained to file the aforesaid suit.