GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH Vs. BAREKUNNESSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant Nos. 2-5, the Government of Bangladesh and its three officials have preferred this appeal, on leave, from the judgment and order dated 3.2.94 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No. 1588 of 1989 making the Rule absolute and setting aside thereby the judgment and decree dated 1.8.89 passed by the learned District Judge, Noakhali in Title Appeal No. 105 of 1987 allowing the appeal and reversing the judgment and decree dated 4.3.87 passed in Title Suit No. 129 of 1985 by the learned Assistant Judge, Begumgonj Upazila who decreed the suit and declared that the temporary lease granted to defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1 herein) by the Government in respect of 10 decimals of Government acquired land in Settlement Case No. 2014 of 1984-85 on 8.7.85 is illegal, void and not binding upon the plaintiffs.

(2.) Plaintiff-respondent Nos.2 and 3 instituted the aforesaid suit stating, inter alia, that the disputed land originally belonged to Monu Miah who subsequently by a deed of gift dated 7.12.69 transferred the same to his sons Habibur Rahman and others and those donees by a registered deed dated 4.9.81 sold the same to the plaintiffs and since then the plaintiffs had been possessing the same by constructing tin shed thereon. The plaintiffs on 10.8.84 inducted defendant No. 1 into a dochala tinshed as their monthly tenant at a rental of Tk. 150/-. Later on she became an undesirable tenant and was asked to vacate the suit premises. Then defendant No. 1 in collusion with some employees of the Government got a collusive settlement of the suit land illegally to the prejudice of the plaintiffs. It was further alleged that the disputed land along with other land was acquired by the Government in 1941 for the purpose of establishing Noakhali District Head Quarters, but later on the plan was changed and the Government did not take over physical possession of the said land. The plaintiffs' predecessors had continued in possession of the suit land till it was sold to the plaintiffs.

(3.) Defendant No. 1 by filing a written statement and the present appellants by filing another written statement contested the suit denying the case of the plaintiffs. The common case of the defendants is that the suit land having been finally acquired as far back as in 1941, the plaintiff did not acquire any right, title and interest therein by virtue of their alleged purchase and they had no locus standi to maintain the present suit for declaration that the temporary lease granted by the Government to defendant No. 1 is illegal.