GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH Vs. ABDUR RAHMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.11.1998 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 3961 of 1996 discharging the Rule.

(2.) Short facts are that the plaintiff respondent filed Title Suit No. 196 of 1977 in the 2nd Court of Munsif (now Assistant Judge), Gazipur Sadar for a decree for permanent injunction restraining the principal defendants from entering into the suit land and from planting any plant in the suit land and/or from in any way disturbing possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land stating, inter alia, that on 04.05.1949 the Bhawal Court of Wards Estate settled the land in schedule & to plaintiff Nos. 1-4 and pro forma defendant No. 6 on receipt of salami also settled lands of schedule 'b' to plaintiff Nos. 1 and 5 and pro forma defendant Nos., 7-14 by realizing salami from them and they were delivered possession of the suit land. The plaintiff Nos. 3-5 cultivated their own land and also cultivated and looked after the lands of others as bargadars. In a portion of schedule 'B' lands plaintiffs have erected huts where their caretaker Shamsuddin along with some cook reside. During R.S. operation upto draft publication the suit land was recorded in the names of the plaintiffs and pro forma defendants. Thereafter, the defendants filed objection under Rule 30 of Tenancy Rules and the objection officer ordered for recording the names of the 'defendants in place of the plaintiffs in the Khatian. On appeal the appellate officer directed for preparing the records in the names of the plaintiffs. The defendant then realized rent from the plaintiffs upto 1382 B.S. The plaintiffs have been possessing the suit land uninterruptedly by cultivating seasonal crops. The principal defendants have been threatening the plaintiffs to dispossess by growing Gazari trees on the suit land. Hence the suit.

(3.) The principal defendants contested the suit by filing written statement and denied the material allegations made in the plaint. They contended, inter alia, that the suit is barred by the provisions of the Forest Act, 1927 as well as section 56 of the Specific Relief Act. Their case is that the suit plot Nos. 1330, 1410, 1596, 1600. 1606 and 1662 of Mouza Araishaprosad along with other lands were declared as protected forest under Gazatte Notification No. 14177 dated 17.07.1937 and since then the suit land is in peaceful possession of the Forest Department and the Forest Department planted various valuable trees. The further case of the defendants is that it was decided to constitute the suit plots as reserve forest along with other plots by notification No, 3125 dated 13.04.1955 and the Collector of Dhaka was appointed as forest Settlement Officer. As per provision of Forest Act objections were invited from the interested persons within 90 days but neither the plaintiffs or anybody raised any objection as they had no title and possession in the suit land. Subsequently the Forest department by its memo No. 3755(2)/8-12 dated 15.09.1967 requested the Government to declare the suit plots along with other lands as reserve forest which is under active consideration of the Government. The suit lands were correctly recorded in the name of the defendants but the plaintiffs created some false deeds to grab these valuable forest lands of the Government.