Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Salim

CIVIL REVISION NO.1045 OF 2009.

Government of Bangladesh, represented by the deputy commissioner, Gopalgonj.

-------------Defendant No.1-Appellant-Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

Nuruzzaman Mia and others

-------------Opposite Parties. Mr. Binoy Kumar Ghosh, A.A.G.

.............. For the Petitioner. Ms. Purabi Saha, Advocate

....... For the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2.

Heard and Judgment on 25.05.2023.

This rule at the instance of the defendant-appellant-petitioner is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15.08.2002 passed by the Joint District Judge, 1st Court, Gopalganj in Title Appeal No.96 of 2001, dismissing the appeal in affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.05.2001 passed by the Senior Assistant Judge, Kotalipara, Gopalgonj in Title Suit No.36 of 2000 decreeing the suit.

Facts relevant for disposal of the rule are that the opposite party, Nos.1 and 2 as plaintiffs, instituted Title Suit No.36 of 2000 for the declaration of title in the suit land and also the declaration that the record

of the scheduled land in Khas Khatian No.1 in the name of the government in the S.A. record prepared wrongly, illegally and not binding upon the plaintiffs, and contending that .02 acre of land in plot No.364 of R.S. Khatian No.174 under 29 No. Chhoto Dighalia Mouza belonged to Akshay Kumar Saha, who, before R.S. record, used to run a business in a shop over the suit land; Akshay Kumar sold the land to Khetra Mohan Saha and Monindra Nath Saha by a registered deed No. 768 dated 5.2.1952. They continued the business like their vendor. Subsequently, they sold the suit land by a registered Kabala No. 18 dated 2.1.1964 corresponding to 17 the Poush 1370 BS in favor of Ayub Ali Faraji, a resident of Dighalia, and continued the business like his vendor; that preliminary S.A. record prepared in the name of Khetra Mohan and Monindra, but they did not take any information about final publication of the Khatian; that due to enlistment of names in preliminary Khatian, they paid rent and obtained Dakhila; that Ayub Ali Faraji, the subsequent purchaser did not take information about the S.A. final record at the time of his purchase and following in 1966 for 6 point movement Auyb Ali did not pay any rent. After independence, the government remitted the tax up to 25 Bighas. As such, he did not inquire about the S.A. record and, while possessing in such position, sold the same by registered kabala No. 2016 dated 9.8.1984 in favor of the plaintiff. And used to run the business as before that of his vendor; that in the present survey, the suit land was recorded in the name of Ayub Ali Fraji; that the suit land in the name of East Pakistan Province represented by collector Faridpur was recorded in S.A. Khatian No. 1 which had no basis; that in R.S. Khatian in the possession column, the suit land was marked as ‘Chandina’ if so, the same not be vested to the government as per law but in S.A. Khatian there was no mention of Chandiana in respect of Suit land; that on 27.03.2000 while plaintiff came to know about the wrong record and received threat from the Tahshilder to lease out elsewhere constrained to file the suit.

Defendant No.1 Government contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the plaintiff’s title and possession in the suit land and contending inter-alia that the suit land is the Government Khas land as Hat-Bazar and accordingly recorded in Khas Khatian No. 1 and finally Published and also recorded as the periphery of hat; that the suit land as per rule of the government is suitable for lease on a yearly basis and being the periferry of Hat and Bhitti, the plaintiff has no right title, interest and possession over the same, that the plaintiffs alleged deed No. 768 dated 5.02.1952, deed No. 2016 dated 2.1.1964 were false and on 27.03.2000 or in any dated the Tahshilder did not ask the plaintiff to take the settlement o