BANGLADESH Vs. ZEENATH TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from First Appeal. No. 478 of 1968 decided by a Bench of the High Court Division, Dhaka (Mr. Justice Ranadhir Sen and Mr. Justice Aminur Rahman Khan) on 12th April 1982.

(2.) Plaintiff- respondent filed Title Suit No. 95 of 1965 in the Subordinate Judge, 3rd Court, Dhaka for declaration that the assessment of rent under the provisions of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 in respect of the Schedule land is without jurisdiction and in violation of the agreement between plaintiff and defendant - Government. Plaintiff also prayed for refund of Tk. 95, 0007- paid by the plaintiff as arrear rents etc. It was averred by the plaintiff that the suit land was acquired by the Government under the provisions of the Emergency Requisition of Property Act, 1948 in favour of the plaintiff to whom delivery of possession was made in terms of a bilateral agreement between the Government and plaintiff. Government received the full amount of compensation paid to the owner with capitalised value from the plaintiff. Since then plaintiff has been carrying on production of textiles in the mills established thereon. Plaintiff claimed that the aforesaid agreement contained no term for payment or assessment of rent for the suit land. In 1962 plaintiff, however, received a notice from the Revenue Circle Officer as per Memo. No.1207-E 80/58 dated 28.11.60 issued by the Board of Revenue. The Revenue Officer was alleged to have illegally assessed rents under section 50 of the Slate Acquisition and Tenancy Act which, according to the plaintiff, was illegal as the lands have been delivered to him rent free and were, therefore, not liable 'to any assessment of rent. Land was shown rent free in the khatian. Plaintiff objected to the impugned rent under section 19(1) of the aforesaid Act which was disallowed. Plaintiff preferred appeal to the Special Judge who remanded the same resulting in only a small reduction of rent. It was also alleged that the Revenue authority gave retrospective effect to the order of the Board of Revenue, by assessing arrear rents.

(3.) Defendant-Government, appellant before us, appeared and contested the suit by filing a written statement contending, inter alia, that the suit was speculative, bad for want of notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also that the plaintiff accepted the assessment of rent and accordingly made payment of the same voluntarily. Further, plaintiffs claim was by waiver, acquiescence, estoppel and limitation.