IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(CIVIL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION)

CIVIL REVISION No. 1476 OF 2018.

Md. Nazrul Islam and others.

...Petitioners.

-Versus-

Amorendra Narayan and others.

....Opposite parties. Mr. Saidul Alam Khan, Advocate

… For the petitioners

Mr. Surojit Bhattacharjee with

Mrs. Farhana Siraj Roonic with

Mr. Monishankar Sarkar, Advocates

… for the opposite party Nos. 1(a)-1(c)

Heard on: 23.11.2023,14.12.2023,19.02.2024.

Judgement on: 20.02.2024.

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Badruzzaman.

This Rule was issued calling upon opposite party Nos. 1-4 to show cause as to why judgment and decree dated 29.03.2018 passed by learned Assistant Judge, Babugonj, Barishal in Title Suit No. 40 of 2008 decreeing the suit should not be set aside.

At the time of issuance of Rule the operation of the impugned judgment and decree was stayed for a period of 6 (six) months which was, subsequently, extended till disposal of the Rule.

Facts relevant, for the purpose of disposal of this Rule, are that opposite party Nos. 1-4 as plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 40 of 2008 under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act in the Court of Assistant Judge, Babugonj, Barishal against Hasan Ali Hawlader, the predecessor of the opposite parties, praying for a decree of recovery of khas possession in

respect of .03 acre land as described in schedule Kha of the plaint contending, inter alia, that .99 acre land of S.A Khatian No. 1200 was originally belonged to Bir Singh Narayan and others and S.A Khatian No. 1200 was prepared and finally published in their names. While they were owning and possessing the said land Kosim Uddin Mollah and others obtained a collusive compromise decree from 1st Court of Sub- ordinate Judge, Barishal on 28.09.1974 in Title Suit No. 227 of 1974. The plaintiffs, thereafter, filed Title Suit No. 341 of 1974 praying for a decree of declaration of title to the suit land and another declaration that the compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 227 of 1974 was collusive, inoperative and not binding upon them and in that suit they won up to the High Court Division. One Abdul Jabbar Howlader filed Title Suit No. 82 of 1994 through his wife Most. Halima Begum in which the plaintiffs filed written statement and said suit was dismissed on 13.07.2006. The defendant was possessing in an old building situated in the land of S.A Khatian No. 1102 as permissive possessor. Thereafter, the landlord of the land of S.A Khatian No. 1102 filed Title Suit No. 87 of 2000 in same Court for eviction of the defendant. Assuming that he would be defeated in Title Suit No. 87 of 2000 he left that premises situated in the land of S.A Khatian No. 1102 and forcibly entered into .03 acre suit land of plot Nos. 3337 and 3331 on 27.11.2007 and started to construct wall therein. Being learnt about the fact, the plaintiffs on 24.12.2007 went to the suit land and requested the defendant to vacate the land when he assured that he would vacate the land within two/three months but thereafter, he constructed a tin shed house therein. The plaintiffs on 24.05.2008, requested the defendant to handover possession of the suit land to them but he refused and also threatened the lives of the plaintiffs.

One Bhudha Narayan purchased the suit land in auction from 2nd Munsif Court which was confirmed on 10.07.1960. Bhudha Narayan got possession through Court on 03.04.1962 and mutated his name in respect of the suit land on 26.12.1962 vide Mutation Case No. 3151 of 1962. So there was no reason to hold another auction and there was no reason to file Certificate Case No. 865/1969-1970 and in the said auction proceeding Bhudha Narayan had not been made as parties and no notice was served upon him. No auction was held on 03.12.1969 in the benami of Sunam Uddin nor said Sunam Uddin got possession on 25.12.1970. Since the defendant is illegal possessor, he is liable to be evicted from the suit land and as such, the suit.

The defendant contested the