LAWS(BANG)-2005-7-5

GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH Vs. MEGHA FISHERIES LTD.

Decided On July 04, 2005
Government Of Bangladesh Appellant
V/S
Megha Fisheries Ltd. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Mymensingh preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 7-7-2003 passed by the High Court Division in First Appeal No. 456 of 2000 dismissing the appeal.

(2.) The facts leading to the appeal are that the appellant as the plaintiff instituted Other Class Suit No.12 of 1996 for declaration that the registered lease deed No. 4330 dated 15-6-1996 between the plaintiff-appellant and defendant Megha Fisheries Ltd is null and void and not binding upon the plaintiff. In the suit, it has been stated that the defendant fisheries, a Public Ltd Co applied to the government for long term lease of 155.39 acres of non-agricultural land for fish cultivation in scientific way; that after enquiries and observing all formalities the lease was granted to the defendant in respect of aforesaid non-agricultural land within Bhaluka PS District-Mymensingh for a period of 10 years at a Salami of Taka 9,30,396/07 and on receipt of first instalment of Salami amounting to Taka 1,86,079/22 a lease deed was registered on 15-6-1996 and that the Deputy Commissioner during the subsistence of lease cancelled the lease on 10-9-1996 on the plea that same terms and conditions in the draft of the original lease deed agreed upon by both the parties were altered/modified before registration of the deed by the respondent Co without the consent of the plaintiff-petitioner. It was alleged that the terms and conditions in the draft agreement which were earlier approved by the plaintiff being deleted some new conditions had been included by the defendant Co by practicing fraud.

(3.) The defendant-respondent contested the suit denying material allegations made in the plaint and it was contended, inter alia, that the lease agreement was properly drafted incorporating therein the terms of the agreement agreed upon by both the parties; that several officials of the Deputy Commissioner perused the lease agreement before execution and accordingly it was legally registered and that the defendant-respondent committed neither any wrong nor any fraud as alleged but the Deputy Commissioner most illegally cancelled the valid lease and the suit was filed malafide and prayed for dismissal of the suit.