MD. SAMIUL HAQUE Vs. KHAIRUL ALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment dated March 13, 2004 of a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 1862 of 1991 making absolute the Rule obtained against the judgment and decree dated March 6, 1991 of the Court of Subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge), Sherpur in Other Appeal No. 77 of 1988 reversing the Judgment and decree dated July 31, 1988 of the Court of Assistant Judge, Sribordi, Sherpur in Other Class Suit No. 64 of 1985 decreeing the same.

(2.) The suit was filed seeking declaration of title and for recovery of khas possession of the land in suit. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they have purchased the land in suit by the kabala dated January 19, 1980 from defendant No.4, Nahar Ali, who purchased the same from Pyar Mamud, father of defendant Nos. 1-3 by the kabala dated September 19, 1974, that since purchase plaintiffs were possessing the land till they were dispossessed by the principal defendants, that defendant No.1, son of Pyar Mamud filed an application before the local Circle Officer under the provision of Ordinance No. 28 of 1976 but the same was dismissed on April 22, 1981, that defendant No.1 in collusion with the personnel of the local Revenue Officer managed to procure a forged order showing allowing the application filed by defendant No.1 and on the basis thereof dispossessed the plaintiff on April 9, 1985, that defendant No.1 did not get any order in his favour from the office of the local Revenue office on the application filed under the provision of Ordinance No. 28 of 1976 and no order for dispossessing the plaintiffs from the land in suit was issued from the office of the local Revenue Office, that by the forged and fabricated order of the Officer of the local Revenue Office brought into existence by the defendant No.1 no title and interest was created in favour of the defendant No.1 in the land in suit, that by the said forged and fabricated order defendants have not acquired any title or interest in the land in suit, that in the proceeding initiated upon the application filed by the defendant No.1 in the office of the local Revenue Officer the plaintiffs were not made parties.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant Nos. 1-3 by filing written statement denying the material averments made in the plaint. The suit was also contested by defendant Nos.5 and 7 by filing separate sets of written statement upon denying the case of the plaintiffs. The case of the defendants is that Pyar Mamud, father of the defendant Nos. 1-3 was the owner of the land in suit and during economic distress of the year 1974 he sold the land to defendant No.4, that after the death of Pyar Mamud the defendants as well as the heirs of Pyar Mamud filed a petition under the provision of Ordinance No. 28 of 1976 before the Revenue Officer and thereupon Revenue Case No. 809 (XIII) of 1976-77 was registered and the same was allowed by the order dated July 3, 1981, that in pursuant to the order of the Revenue Officer defendants paid Tk. 250/- on August 8, 1981 and obtained the receipt and on May 13, 1985 paid Tk. 250/- and obtained the receipt, that after the payment of first installment Revenue Officer passed order directing the relevant officer to hand over possession of the land in suit to the defendants and the said personnel of the Revenue Office, Sribordi made over possession to the defendants on April 11, 1982 and thereupon filed report as to delivery of possession in the office of the Revenue Officer, that plaintiffs' father impleading defendant Nos. 1, 5 and others initiated a proceeding in the Court of Magistrate on March 7, 1983 under section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but the same was rejected on September 4, 1983, that while the defendant Nos. 1-3 and other heirs of Pyar Mamud were in possession of the land the defendant No.3 sold 7 decimals of land to defendant No. 5 on October 13, 1985 and defendant Nos.1 and 2 sold 15 Decimals of land defendant No.5 on October 12, 1985, that defendant Nos. 1-3's mother and their full sister sold 12 decimals of land to defendant No.7 on October 12, 1985, that defendant Nos. 5 and 7 on the basis of their purchase are in possession of their purchased land.