GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH Vs. AMAL KRISHNA DATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, 3rd Court Mymensingh in Other Class Appeal No. 166 of 1994 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Assistant Judge, Sadar, Mymensingh in Other Class Suit No. 219 of 1991 should not be set aside and / or such other or further order or orders passed as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

(2.) The opposite party as plaintiff instituted Other Suit No. 219 of 1991 in the Court of learned Senior Assistant Judge, Mymensingh seeking for declaration of title in the land appertaining to C.S. Khatian No. 95, C.S. Plot No. 1151, ROR No. 700, ROR plot No. 4971 measuring an area of .0574 ajutangsha within mouja Mymensingh under P.S. Kotwali District-Mymensingh contending, inter alia, that the said land belonged to Shasikanta Acharjaya Chowdhury, the landlord of Muktagacha Estate. The plaintiffs father named Aboni Kanta Dutta was a Tahshildar of the said Estate who in liue of his service prayed for getting the suit land for construction of his dwelling house and that prayer was allowed. The plaintiffs father constructed a homestead upon the suit land and started living therein. The Jamindar used to pay 50% of his salary and the rest 50% of salary was being adjusted towards the valuation of the suit property. This way the plaintiffs father started possessing the suit land and homestead. The plaintiffs father died in 1960 and since then the plaintiff has been possessing the same. The ROR record was wrongly prepared in the name of Pritimoni Basu. The plaintiff came to know about the said wrongly prepared ROR record on 6.4.1991. By that wrong ROR record there cast a cloud upon his title.

(3.) It is the further case of the plaintiff that the landlord Shashikanta handed over possession in favour of the plaintiffs father without fixing any rent and that remained a rent free land till the acquisition of the rent-receiving interest by Government. Thereafter the plaintiffs father submitted several prayers to the Government for fixing rent but in vain. The plaintiffs also prayed to the Government on different occasions for fixing rent of the suit land but with no result. The plaintiff is entitled to retain possession and the defendant Government is liable to fix rent against the suit land. The plaintiff got the certified copy of ROR on 7.4.1991 and thereafter filed the suit on 7.7.1991 seeking for declaration of title in the suit land.