Abdur Rahman & others Vs. Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Gazipur & others

Appellate Division Cases

(Civil)

PARTIES

Abdur Rahman & others………………. Petitioners.

-VS-

Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Gazipur & others………………. Respondents.

Md. Ruhul Amin J

M.M. Ruhul Amin J

Md. Tafazzul Islam J

Judgment Dated: 28th November 2006

The Forest Act 1927

The Specific Relief Act  Section 56

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 in 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 of grab these valuble forest lands of the Government ……………………..(3)

Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed ………………(7)

Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan, Senior Advocate instructed by Sufia Khatun. Advocate-on-Record………………….. For the Petitioner.

Respondent …………………..Not represented.

Civil Review Petition No. 67 of 2005

(From the judgment and order dated 08.03.2005 passed by the Appellate Division in Civil Appeal No. 81 of 1999)

JUDGMENT

M.M. Ruhul Amin J: By this petition the petitioner seeks review of this Court’s judgment dated 08.03.2005 passed in Civil Appeal No. 81 of 1999 allowing the appeal.

2. Short facts are that the plaintiff 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 plamting any plaint 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 ‘A’ to plaintiff Nos. 1-4 and pro forma defendant No. 6 on receipt of salami and also settled lands of schedule ‘B’ to plaintiff Nos. 1 and 5 and proforma defendant Nos. 7-14 by realizing salami from them and the possession of the suit land was delivered. 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 Shamsuddm along with some cook reside. During R.S. operation upto draft publication 3 suit land was  recorded in the names of the plaintiffs and proforma 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, in short, 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 Gazette 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 in 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)/812 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 of grab these valuble forest lands of the Government.

4. We have heard Mr. Abdul Wadud Bhuiyan, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the connected papers.

5. Mr. Bhuiyan mainly submits that it is the case of defendant Government that the Forest Department by memo 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. This clearly shows that no final decision was taken in the matter. So, the Defendant-Government cannot claim the land. It may be stated here that in our judgment sought to be reviewed, it was clearly stated that the suit land along with other lands were declared as protected forest under Gazette Notification No. 14177 dated 17.07.1937 and since then the suit land is in possession of the Forest Department and has been managed by the Forest Department as such by planting various valuable trees and the request of Forest Department to the Government to declare in the suit land and other lands as reserve forest does not change the character of the land as same is being treated as forest land since 1937.

6. Thus it appears that the point raised by Mr. Bhuiyan was well answered in our judgment. We find no cogent reason to review the same.

7. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.

Source : V ADC (2008), 310