MOHAMMAD ALI Vs. BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for Leave to Appeal is directed st the judgment and order dated 06.12.2004 passed by a Single Bench of High Court Division in Civil Revision 126 of 1994 reversing the judgment decree dated 19.01.1994 passed by the Additional district Judge, 1st Court, Tangail, in Other Class Appeal No. 47 of 1993 reversing those dated 18.02.1993 by the Subordinate Judge, 2nd Court, Tangail, in Other Class Suit No. 10 of 1992.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case are that the plaintiff is a landless cultivator and he prayed for settlement of 'B schedule land without Salami and rent in the year 1975 before the Sub-Division Officer, Tangail and after due inquiries the Sub-Division officer, Tangail granted settlement to the plaintiff under L.A Case No. 114/46(XII) in the year 1975-76 from 30th Chaitra 1394 B.S for a period of 15 years by way of a registered kabuliat No.9101 dated 15.07.1976 under certain terms and conditions and the plaintiff has been possessing the same by cultivating the schedule-2 land and the plaintiff in the meantime has developed certain portion of low land after spending his own money and made it fit for cultivation though the part of the leased out land was not fully agricultural land at the time of settlement and after the expiry of 15 years under condition No. 10 of the kabuliyat the plaintiff acquired proprietary right as the settlement was made for permanent Maliki purposes and after the expiry of 15 years the plaintiff can use the land in any manner he likes and the plaintiff has been possessing the land as 'Malik' without affecting any terms and conditions of the kabuliyat but the respondent No. 3 in collusing with other respondents without issuing any notice to the plaintiff asking him to show cause for any alleged breach of condition of the kabuliyat, not illegally, arbitrarily and by acting beyond jurisdiction the defendant No.1 cancelled the plaintiffs settlement on 19.01.1992 with the help of Memo No.10-228/91-604(6) S.A. which clouded the title of the plaintiff upon schedule-2 land and consequently the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit as aforesaid.

(3.) The defendant-respondents' contention in the suit is that the suit is not maintainable in its present form, that the suit is barred by limitation and by the principle of estoppel, acquiescence and waiver; that the plaintiff has no right, title and possession in the land and the suit is barred by Section 76 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act. The further case of the defendant No.1 is that the suit land is khas land of the Government and was given in settlement to the plaintiff in L.A. Case No. 114/46 (XII) in the year 1975-76 without Salami and rents on his application on certain terms and conditions on his executing a kabuliyat but the plaintiffs have violated condition No. 3 of the kabuliyat by digging a pond in the suit land changing the nature and value of the same without any permission from the collector's office and the Government took possession of the same pursuant to condition 10 of the kabuliyat canceling the settlement and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed without costs.