Shamsuddin Chowdhury Vs. Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh

Appellate Division Cases

(Civil)

PARTIES

Shamsuddin Chowdhury and others………….. Petitioners

-Vs-

Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy

Commissioner, Bhola and others………….. Respondents

Md. Ruhul Amin J

M.M. Ruhul Amin J

Md. Tafazzul Islam J

Judgment Dated: 29th August 2006

The suit was filed seeking declaration that the orders described in schedule ‘Ka’ and ‘Kha’ and the proceedings initiated on the basis of the said orders are illegal, void, without jurisdiction and as such not binding upon the plaintiffs. …………(1)

The High Court Division discharged the Rule on the finding that plaintiffs failed to establish their claim as regard the land in suit and that also failed to prove their possession in the land in suit. The High Court Division while discharging the Rule has observed that plaintiffs did not seek the relief as to their title in the land in suit and that the plaintiffs did not establish their claim as regard the land in suit by adducing evidence. ……………………..(5)

filed the suit seeking declaration the proceedings initiated for realization of rent are illegal and void and not binding upon them …………(6)

Sufia Khatun, Advocate-on-record ……………….For the Petitioners

For the Respondents, …………………………..Not represented

Civil Petition For Leave To Appeal No.917 of 2005

(From the Judgment and Order dated May 9, 2005 passed by the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.3030 of 2000)

JUDGMENT

Md Kuhul Amin J : This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated May 9, 2005 of a Single Bench of the High Court Division in Civil Revision No.3030 of 2000 disclaiming the Rule obtained against the judgment and decree dated April 25, 2000 of the 1st Court of Subordinate Judge (now Joint District Judge) Bhola in Title Appeal No.25 of 1997 dismissing the same and thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated February 27, 1999 of the Court of Assistant Judge, Manpura, Bhola in Title

Suit No.3 of 1994 dismissing the same. The suit was filed seeking declaration that the orders described in schedule ‘Ka’ and ‘Kha’ and the proceedings initiated on the basis of the said orders arc illegal, void, without jurisdiction and as such not binding upon the plaintiffs.

2. It appears that the plaintiffs are claiming the land measuring 115.71 acres of Touzi Nos.1763 and 1764 of the Bakerganj Collectorate and upon making claim on the land of the said Touzis in respect of which suit has been filed. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the land of the said Touzis dilluviated and that after alluvion they as the tenants of the land of the said Touzis approached the authority for allotment of the land so alluviated and the authority allowed the prayer so made and that as against the said order the

Government moved the Board of Revenue by way of appeal and the same was dismissed, that Title Suit No.90 of 1994 was also dismissed and thus the permanent settlement holder Raja Rajesh Kanta Roy got the land and said Raja Rajesh Kanta Roy executed a Power of Attorney appointing Kamaluddin Chowdhury as the Attorney and the said Attorney settled the land of the aforementioned Touzis to plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs obtained settlement from said Kamaluddin Chowdhury and that while the plaintiffs were in possession of their land there was a dispute as to whether the land claimed by them is within the District of Noakhali and in that connection Title Suit No. 159 of 1960 was

filed in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Barisal and therein plaintiffs’ title was declared, that the plaintiffs approached the authority to accept rent from them but the defendants claimed half of the paddy produced and also refused to accept rent and that ultimately the Authority started certificate cases and thereupon the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit challenging legality of the certificate cases as well as the order described in schedule ‘Ka’

3. The suit was contested by the defendant Nos.1-4 as well as by the defendant No.5 by filing separate sets of written statement denying the material averments made in the plaint and contending, inter alia, that the suit is not maintainable and the same is barred by limitation and that the land in suit is the khas land of the Government’ and that the plaintiffs on the basis of their pattan said to have been obtained from Kamal Uddin Chowdhury did not pay rent and as such certificate case has been started. It was the case of the defendant No.5 that the land shown in ‘Ga’ schedule went under water and as such the plaintiffs have no right, title and possession.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the finding that the suit filed challenging the legality of the certificate case is not maintainable. The plaintiffs went on appeal but

without any success. Thereupon the plaintiffs moved the High Court Division in L. revisional jurisdiction and obtained Rule.

5. The High Court Division discharged the Rule on the finding that plaintiffs failed to establish their claim as regard the land in suit and that also failed to prove their ossession

in the land in suit. The High Court Division while discharging the Rule has observed that plaintiffs did not seek the relief as to their title in the land in suit and that the plaintiffs did not establish their claim as regard the land in suit by adducing evidence.

6. It is seen that plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking declaration the proceedings

initiated for realization of rent arc illegal and void and not binding upon them. The plaintiffs could not establish their title in the land in suit and that they being in possession

of the land which belong to the Government and they having not paid rent required to be filed by the kind of person as the plaintiffs are the relevant authority has initiated the proceedings in question. In the said state of the matter we arc of the view the High Court Division as well as courts below were not in error in holdins that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable.

7. The learned Advocate-on-record could not point out error of the kind in the judgment

of the High Court Division calling for interference.

8. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.

Source : V ADC (2008),621

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.