Amir Hossain Howlader Vs. Mohd. Ali Hossain Fakir and others, 3 LNJ (2014) 858

Case No: Civil Revision No. 7003 of 2001

Judge: Md. Abu Tariq,

Court: High Court Division,,

Advocate: Mr. Debdas Samaddar,,

Citation: 3 LNJ (2014) 858

Case Year: 2014

Appellant: Amir Hossain Howlader

Respondent: Mohammad Ali Hossain Fakir and others

Subject: Jurisdiction of a Court,

Delivery Date: 2014-02-10

HIGH COURT DIVISION
(Civil Revisional Jurisdiction)
 
Md. Abu Tariq, J.

Judgment on
10.02.2014
 
  Amir Hossain Howlader son of late Hatem Ali Howlader
…Defendant-Petitioners
-Versus-
Mohammad Ali Hossain Fakir, son of Mohammad Ayub ali Fakir
…Plaintiff-Opposite-party
Assistant Commissioner (Land) Banaripara, Barisal and others
...Plaintiff-respondents
Opposite-parties.
 
বাংলাদেশ ঋণ সালিশী আইন, ১৯৮৯ (XV of 1989)
Section 24
The trial Court after assessing and reassessing the evidence that the defendant No. 1, petitioner has got the land, less than 2 acres and admittedly the value of the land incorporated of the kabala dated 10.04.1984 is 20,000/- (twenty thousand), which is less than 30,000/- (thirty thousand) so as per requirement of law, defendant No. 1, petitioner filed the case before the Rin Shalishi Board and then to the Appellate authority under the provision of law and the matter has been finally and properly adjudicated upon. So in no way the Civil Court is entitled to entertain such prayer in a civil suit.(18)

বাংলাদেশ ঋণ সালিশী আইন, ১৯৮৯ (XV of 1989)
Section 24
The Rin Shalishi Ain imposed clear bar, specifically to go for redress in Civil Court or any other Court on the part of the aggrieved party. There is no proof before the Court that the order in question is not passed in good faith in the appeal by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue); so the suit is not maintainable in the Civil Court.(18)

Mr. Debdas Samaddar, Advocate.
. . . For the petitioner

None appeared nor filed power
. . . For the opposite parties. 

Civil Revision No. 7003 of 2001
 
JUDGMENT
Md. Abu Tariq, J:

On an application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendant petitioner challenged the legality and propriety of the impugned judgment and decree dated 27.09.2001, passed by the learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Artharin Adalat, Barisal, in Title Appeal No. 192 of 2000, reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2000, passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Banaripara, Barisal, in Title Suit No. 04 of 1998, dismissing the suit.
The opposite party, as plaintiff, filed a Title Suit No. 4 of 1998 against the defendant petitioners, in the Court of Assistant Judge, Banaripara, Barisal for declaration that the order dated 23.7.1997 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Barisal, in Rin Salishi Appeal No. 443 of 1990-1991 in respect of the Schedule ‘Ka’ land of the plaint is illegal, null and void, fraudulent and without jurisdiction and as such the same is not binding upon the plaintiff.

The case of the plaintiff in short is that the plaintiff purchased 88 ½ decimals of land by kabala dated 10.4.1984 at a  consideration of Tk. 20,000/- from the defendant No. 1 and while possessing the said land mortgaged the same in Agrani Bank on 4.7.1988. The defendant No. 1 filed the Rin Shalishi Case No. 189 of 1989-1990, after promulgation of Rin Salishi Ain in 1989, claiming the property on the ground that he has got no land excess to 2 acres. The Rin Salishi Board upon hearing both the parties  dismissed the said case on 23.4.1991 finding that the defendant No. 1 has got the quantum of land excess to 2 acres. Being aggrieved by the said order defendant No. 1 preferred Rin Shalishi Appeal No. 443 of 1990-1991 before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), as appellate Court, Barisal. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Rev) after hearing the parties allowed the appeal on 23.07.1997, holding that the order of Rin Salishi Board is illegal, and without jurisdiction. It is further stated in the plaint that the claim of the defendant No. 1  is not tenable in the eye of law and a false claim. He has  earlier received consideration money as recited in the deed of kabala and sold the land as such the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) passed the order on 23.7.97 illegally and hence, the suit.

The defendant No. 1 contested the suit by filing written statements contending, inter alia, that the land in question was sold by the defendant No. 1, to the plaintiff for the necessity of his life on account of natural calamity and he has got no land excess to 2 acres and as such filed the case No. 189 of 1989-1990 which was illegally rejected by the Rin Salishi Board on 23.4.1991. Against which Rin Salishi Appeal No. 443 of 1990-1991 was preferred by this defendant, the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Barisal allowed the appeal considering all the legal aspects. Since, the Additional Deputy Commissioner(Revenue) as appellate authority has got the lawful jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal the suit is not maintainable having other remedy provided in law.

After hearing of both the parties, the learned Judge of the trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 27.8.2000. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and decree, the plaintiff as appellant preferred Title Appeal No. 192 of 2000.  After hearing of both the parties the learned Judge of the Court of appeal below allowed the appeal and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 27.9.2001.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree as passed by the Court of appeal below, the defendant petitioner filed this instant revision and obtained the Rule.

The learned Advocate Mr. Debdas Samadder appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment and decree suffers from gross illegality on account of not being the proper judgment of reversal, not reversing the decision of the trial Judge on material points and as such there had been error in the decision occasioning failure of justice.

He further submits that the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) is the competent appellate authority constituted by Rin Salishi Ain in 1989, has got lawful authority to dispose of the Rin Salishi Appeal No. 443 of 1990-1991 and as such Civil Court cannot entertain such a suit against such an order of Rin Salishi Appellate Authority. The suit is not maintainable in law as provided by “ h¡wm¡­cn GZ p¡¢mn£ BCe 1989” and  non-consideration of such legal proposition led the Court of appeal below to commit error in the decision as per law which has occasioned failure of justice.

He then submits that the reason and  findings of the trial Court as to the ownership of the defendant No. 1, relating to quantum of land not exceeding 2 acres, is not been reversed properly through accurate assessment by the Court of appeal below. The plaintiff is a party to the Rin Salishi proceedings as such the suit is not maintainable under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, same ought to have been filed under section 39 of the said Relief Act and as such the Courts below to arrive at an erroneous decision occasioning failure of justice.

No one appeared on behalf of the opposite-parties nor filed power.

I have considered the case of the opposite-parties. Their case is that the land in question was sold by the defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff and he has got no land excess to 2 acres and accordingly he had filed the Case No. 189 of 1989-1990 which was illegally rejected by the Rin Salishi Board on 23.4.1991. On appeal before the Rin Salishi Appeal No. 443 of 1990-1991 the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Barisal, allowed the appeal, considering all the legal aspect, having lawful jurisdiction to dispose of the appeal.
I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner   perused the impugned judgment other materials on record.  Considered the case of the opposite parties.

It appears that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the order dated 23.07.1997, passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Barisal in Rin Shalishi Appeal No. 433 of 1990-1991 is illegal, null and void. The trial Court dismissed the suit finding that:
“ মামলার জমি বাদী বরাবরে বিক্রেতা ১ নং বিবাদী ১৯৮৪ সনে হস্তান্তর করেন। বিরোধীয় আদেশ প্রদান করা হয় ইং ১৯৯৭ সনে। অর্থাৎ ইতিমধ্যে এ্রেতা মামলার জমি ১৩ বছর ভোগ দখল করিয়াছেন। তদকারনে ঋণ সালিশী আইন, ১৯৮৯ এর ৬ ধারার বিধান মতে বিক্রেতাকে বিক্রয় মূল্য ফেরত দেওয়ার আদেশ অপ্রয়োজনীয়। কারণ উক্ত ধারার বিধান মতে উক্ত তের বছর বাদী কর্তৃক ভোগ দখল করার পর পরিশোধ যোগ্য কোন অর্থ থাকে না। তদকারনে বিরোধীয় আদেশে এই মর্মে কোন কিছু উল্লেখ না থাকিলেও উহা দ্বারা উও্র আইনের বিধান লংঘিত হয় নাই।” 
 
The appellate Court reversed the said findings and   decreed the suit holding that:
“আদেশ পর্য্যালোচনায় দেখা যায় যে, অতিরিও্র জেলা কালেক্টর বরিশাল তর্কিত আপীলটি মঞ্জুর করিলেও উহাতে ঋণ সালিশী আইন ১৯৮৯ এর ৭ ধারার বিধান মোতাবেক সম্পত্তি প্রত্যার্পন সহ বিক্রয় মূল্যের টাকা কিভাবে পরিশোধিত হইবে সেই মর্মে আদেশ প্রদান করেন নাই। অর্থাৎ  তাহার আদেশটি অস্পষ্ট এবং তাহার আপীল মঞ্জুর আদেশ ৭ ধারার বিধানকে অনুসরণ করিয়া প্রদান করা হয় নাই। ”

Section 6 (1) of the Rin Shalishi Ain 1989 provides that:
“৬। (১) কতিপয় জমির বিএ্রয় খায়খালাসী বন্ধক ঘোষনা -(১) এই আইন বলবৎ হইবার পর অনাধিক তিন একর কৃষি জমির মালিক কোন কৃষক প্রাকৃতিক দুর্যোগে ক্ষতিগ্রস্থ হওয়ার বা জীবন ধারণে অক্ষমতাজনিত অসহায়তার কারণে কোন কৃষি জমি বিক্রয় করিলে এবং
(ক) উক্ত জমির বিক্রয়মূল্য অনাধিক ত্রিশ হাজার টাকা হইলে অথবা সম শ্রেনীর জমির ক্রয়কালীন সময় সহানীয় বাজার দরের চেয়ে কম হইলে, এবং
খ) বিক্রীত জমির পরিমাণ অনাধিক এক একর হইলে,
উক্ত কৃষক বোর্ড গঠিত হইবার ছয় মাস, বা বিক্রয় দলিল রেজিষ্ট্রী হইবার ছয় মাস, যাহাই পরে হয়, এর মধ্যে উক্ত বিক্রয়কে খায়খালাসী বন্ধক হিসাবে ঘোষনা করিবার জন্য বোর্ডের নিকট বিধি দ্বারা নির্ধারিত পদ্ধতিতে দরখাস্ত করিতে পারিবেন এবং বোর্ড, দরখাস্তটি বিধি দ্বারা নির্ধারিত পদ্ধতিতে শুনানীর পর, দরখাস্তের যথাযর্থতা সম্পর্কে সন্তুষ্ট হইলে, উক্ত বিক্রয়কে সাত বৎসর মেয়াদী খায়খালাসী বন্ধক হিসাবে ঘোষনা করিবেঃ
তবে শর্ত থাকে যে, উও্র জমি ১লা জানুয়ারী, ১৯৮৯ তারিখের পূর্বে পুনরায় হস্তান্তরিত হইয়া  থাকিলে বা ঐ তারিখের পূর্বে উহার উপর কোন শিল্প কারখানা, বাণিজ্যিক প্রতিষ্ঠান বা ইমারত সহাপনের বা অন্য কোন কারণে উহার প্রকৃতি সহায়ীভাবে পরিবর্তিত হইয়া থাকিলে, উক্ত জমির ক্ষেত্রে এ উপ-ধারার অধীন কোন দরখাস্ত গ্রহণযোগ্য হইবে না। ”
 
Under this provision the defendant petitioner made the prayer before the “Board” and the Board rejected his prayer. On appeal his prayer was allowed finally. The trial Court after assessing and reassessing the evidence that the defendant No. 1, petitioner has got the land, less than 2 acres and admittedly the value of the land incorporated of the kabala dated 10.04.1984 is 20,000/- (twenty thousand), which is less than 30,000/- (thirty thousand) so as per requirement of law,  defendant No. 1, petitioner filed the case before the Rin Shalishi Board and then to the Appellate authority under the provision of law and the matter has been finally and properly adjudicated upon. So in no way the Civil Court is entitled to entertain such prayer in a civil suit in as much as against the appellate Authority having other legal remedy is available in law.   
 
In the instant case, the impugned order is an order of Rin Shalishi Appeal which has been declared null and void by a civil Court. But the “বাংলাদেশ ঋণ সালিশী আইন, 1989” provides that:
“১৯। আপীল (১) বোর্ডের সিদ্ধান্তর বিরুদ্ধে জেলার অতিরিও্র কালেক্টরের নিকট বিধি দ্বারা নির্ধারিত পদ্ধতিতে আপীল দায়ের করা যাইবে  এবং এই আপীলের উপর প্রদত্ত সিদ্ধান্ত চূড়ান্ত হইবে। ”
 
So, it is apparent that Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), Barisal, as appellate authority provided by an Act passed the order in question, which is final so the order in question is not challengeable to a civil Court. Resultantly, the present suit is not maintainable in the Civil Court and any decision of such court is without jurisdiction.
The provisions provided in Section 24 of the Ain that:
“২৪। কতিপয় আইন অপ্রযোজ্য - এই আইনে ভিন্নরুপ বিধান না থাকিলে  Evidence Act 1872 (I of 1872) এবং Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Act  V of 1908) এর বিধানাবলী বোর্ডের কার্যক্রমের ক্ষেত্রে প্রযোজ্য হইবে না।“

And that Section 26 of the Rin Shalishi Ain
“২৬। সরল বিশ্বাসে কৃত কার্যক্রম রক্ষন এই আইন বা তদধীন প্রনীত বিধির অধীনে সরল বিশ্বাসে কৃত কোন কাজের ফলে কোন ব্যক্তি ক্ষতিগ্রস্থ হইলে বা তাহার ক্ষতিগ্রস্থ হইবার সম্ভাবনা থাকিলে, তজ্জন্য সরকার বা বোর্ডের চেয়ারম্যান বা সদস্য বা বোর্ড বা সরকারের কোন কর্মকর্তা বা কর্মচারীর বিরুদ্ধে কোন দেওয়ানী বা ফৌজদারী মামলা বা অন্য কোন আইনগত কার্যধারা দায়ের বা রুজু করা যাইবে না। ”
 
In view of such it is apparent that the Rin Shalishi Ain imposed clear bar, specifically to go for redress in Civil Court or any other Court on the part of the aggrieved party. There is no proof before the Court that the order in question is not passed in good faith in the appeal by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue); So the suit is not maintainable in the Civil Court having the appropriate forum to challenge the same. 
 
On careful consideration of the impugned judgment of the lower appellate Court, the deposition as adduced by P.W. 1,  legal position in support of his case I find that as a final Court of fact the lower appellate Court is totally misdirected, misconceived and misconstrued in arriving at a correct finding without taking into consideration the legal provisions and the deposition as deposed before the Court of 1st instance. I don not find any ambiguity in the judgment of the learned trial Court who on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidences on record and also the materials on record did not commit any illegality in dismissing the suit. The impugned judgment and order of the lower appellate Court is manifestly illegal who at the time of passing of the impugned judgment  and order did not correctly appreciate and construe the documents and materials on record in accordance with law in reversing the judgment and order of the trial Court.
 
On the above facts and circumstances of the case and discussions made hereinabove I am of the firm view that the learned Judge did not correctly appreciate and construe the documents and materials on record in accordance with law in reversing the judgment of the trial Court. Therefore, the   impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside. Thus the Rule having merit succeeds.
 
In the result, the rule is made absolute without any order as to costs. The impugned judgment and decree is set aside. The suit is thus dismissed.
 
Send down the lower courts records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Court at once for information and necessary action. 
 
Ed.