IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice S M Kuddus Zaman

CIVIL REVISION NO.3372 OF 2002

In the matter of:

An application under Section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

And

Government of Bangladesh

... Petitioner

-Versus-

Jamir Ali and others

... Opposite parties

Mr. Md. Moshihur Rahman, Assistant Attorney General with

Mr. Md. Mizanur Rahman, Assistant Attorney General

.... For the petitioners.

None appears

…. For the opposite party.

Heard and Judgment on 19.11.2024.

This Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and decree dated 28.08.2001 passed by the learned Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Sylhet in Title Appeal No.274 of 1987 affirming the judgment and decree dated 22.03.1986, passed by the learned Additional Munsif, Sylhet, in Title Suit No.30 of 1986 should not be set aside and or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

Facts in short are that the opposite party as plaintiff instituted above suit for declaration of title for the land comprising Sylhet Pourashava Holding No.1 as described in the schedule to the plaint alleging that proforma defendant No.4 Sylhet Pourashava on receipt of

premium from Noor Miah rented above premises as a monthly tenant. Above Noor Miah sold possession of above premise to the plaintiff and plaintiff is in possession in above property. The Government did not have any title and possession in above property but the S.A. Khatian has been erroneously recorded in the name of the Government and on the basis of above erroneous record defendant No.1 denied title of the plaintiff.

Defendant No.1 contested the suit by filing a written statement alleging that the plaintiff does not have any right, title and interest in the suit land which is a Government khas land. The Sylhet Pourashave had no authority to give rented of the suit land to the plaintiff or his predecessor Noor Miah and above land has been correctly recorded in S.A. Khatian No.1 in the name of this defendant.

At trial plaintiff examined 1 witness and his documents were marked as Exhibit No.1 and 2 series. Defendant did not examine any witness nor produce any document.

On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record the learned Munsif decreed the suit.

Being aggrieved by above judgment and decree of the trial Court defendant No.1 the Government of Bangladesh preferred Title Appeal No.2784 of 1987 to the District Judge, Sylhet which was heard by the learned Joint District Judge, Artha Rin Adalar, Sylhet who dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with above judgment and decree of the Court of Appeal below above appellant as petitioner moved to this Court and obtained this Rule.

Mr. Moshihur Rahman, learned Assistant Attorney General for the petitioner submits that admittedly S. A. Khatian of the disputed land has been prepared in the name of defendant No.1. The plaintiff claims that above land belonged to Sylhet Pourashava and he obtained monthly tenancy from Sylhet Pourashave. But the plaintiff could not produce any document showing that Sylhet Pourashava was the rightful owner and possessor of the disputed premises nor the plaintiff produced any document showing that Sylhet Pourashava gave monthly rental or lease to his predecessor Noor Miah. The plaintiff also could not produce any document showing that above Noor Miah transferred the disputed premises to the plaintiff. As such the plaintiff could not prove his claim of title in the disputed land by legal evidence.

The learned Judges of both the Courts be failed to appreciate the evidence on record and most illegally decreed the suit and dismissed the appeal respectively which is not tenable in law.

No one appears on behalf of the opposite party when the Rule was