Supreme Court Judgments, Summarised

by Barrister Tahmidur Rahman | Nov 3, 2026

High Court Division

Government of Bangladesh and others v Most. Masura Khatun and others

Civil Revision 1713/2010 · Decided 2 July 2026

Read the judgment ↓Every listing of this case Download PDF

1judge on the bench

4pages

19paragraphs

2laws considered

Summary

The plaintiffs sued in the court of the Assistant Judge, Tala, Satkhira for a declaration of title to land within the Patkelghata Hut Bazar, claiming that their predecessor took an oral settlement from the C.S. recorded tenants and that the S.A. record in the Government's name was wrong. They sought an injunction restraining the Government defendants from holding a hut and bazar on the land. The trial court refused the injunction, but the District Judge, Satkhira granted it on appeal. The Government obtained a Rule in revision. The High Court Division found that no khatian had been prepared in the predecessor's name, no rent receipt was filed, the S.A. and R.S. records stood in the Government's name, and the undisputed written objection said some plaintiffs had sought settlement of shops from the Assistant Commissioner (Land). As the plaintiffs had not shown possession, which an injunction requires, the Rule was made absolute, the appellate order set aside and the trial court directed to dispose of the suit within six months.

Issues

Q1
Whether plaintiffs claiming land by an unrecorded oral settlement, where the S.A. and R.S. records stood in the name of the Government, showed prima facie title and possession for a temporary injunction.

Key points

S.A. and R.S. records prepared in the name of the Government are prima facie evidence of the Government's possession.
To obtain an order of injunction, the plaintiffs must prove their possession of the suit land.
Where no khatian was prepared in the name of the plaintiffs' predecessor after an alleged oral settlement and no rent receipt was produced, the plaintiffs failed to show possession.
The appellate court's finding of prima facie title and possession was made without basis and was set aside.

Admittedly, the suit land was recorded in the name of the East Pakistan Government during S. A and R.S operation. S.A and R.S record is the prima facie evidence of possession of the Government.

From the judgment, Justice Md. Shohrowardi

Law considered

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, section 115(1)

The judgment

In the court’s own words.

Civil Revision 1713/2010, as published by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. 4 pages, with paragraph numbers for citing.

Find in this judgmentPDF

1Present: Mr. Justice Md. Shohrowardi Civil Revision No. 1713 of 2010 The Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Satkhira and others….Petitioners -Versus- Most. Masura Khatun and others….Opposite parties Mr. Mohammad Mohib Ullah (Maruf), D.A.G with Ms. Mowsumi Akther, A.A.G with Ms. Nargis Parvin (Alija), A.A.G

….For the petitioners

2Mr. Mohammed Shamsul Alam, Advocate with Mr. Md. Safed Ali, Advocate

….For the opposite parties

3Heard on 23.06.2026 Judgment delivered on 02.07.2026

4On an application under section 115(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Rule was issued calling upon the opposite party Nos. 1 to 12 to show cause as to why the impugned judgment and order dated 09.06.2009 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 05 of 2009 by the District Judge, Satkhira reversing the judgment and order dated 30.11.2008 passed by the Assistant Judge, Tala, Satkhira in Title Suit No. 55 of 2008 should not be set aside and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

5The relevant facts for disposal of the Rule are that the opposite party Nos. 1 to 20 filed Title Suit No. 55 of 2008 in the Court of Assistant Judge, Tala, Satkhira praying for a decree of declaration of title in the suit land and that the S.A. Khatian No. 1 was wrongly recorded without any basis and not binding on the plaintiff and inclusion of the suit land in the periphery of the Patkelghata Hut Bazar is illegal, collusive, void and is of no legal effect. During pendency of the suit, the plaintiff-opposite party filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for an injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 from setting hut and bazar in the suit land in connivance with the local Bazar Committee and the lessee stating that Mosharaf Hossain Biswas, Ahed Ali Biswas, Jahiruddin Biswas, Janab Ali Kha and Aftabaddi Kha were the C.S recorded tenants of total .58 decimals of land C.S Khatian Nos. 151, 153, 164 and 148 and Abu Jafar Kha got the oral settlement of .58 decimals of land on 27th Ashar, 1353 B.S from the said C.S recorded owner and after getting settlement, Abu Jafar Kha got the possession in the suit land by cultivating the crops and trees but during S. A operation, S.A khatian No. 11 was wrongly recorded in the name of East Pakistan Government.

6The defendant Nos. 1 to 5 filed written objection against the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 stating

Page 2

that the suit land is Bazar and S.A record was prepared in the name of East Pakistan Government which has been given settlement in favour of eighteen businessman by the AC Land and the plaintiff Nos. 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 also prayed for settlement of the land. The defendant Nos. 1 to 5 claimed that the plaintiff had no possession in the suit land.

7After hearing the parties, the trial Court rejected the application for injunction holding that the plaintiff claimed the title on the suit land based on the oral settlement and without trial, the possession and title of the plaintiff cannot be determined without trial. The appellate Court granted injunction holding that the plaintiffs are claiming possession through their predecessor Abu Jafar Kha since 1946 and submitted the C.S Khatian Nos. 151, 153, 164 and 148 of the suit land and the genuineness of the documents filed by the plaintiff will be determined at the time of trial and that admittedly several shops are existing in the suit land possessed by the plaintiffs and some of the shops have been demolished by the defendants during the emergency period and that the plaintiffs have prima-facie title and possession on the suit land.

8Learned Assistant Attorney General Ms. Mowsumi Akther appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the plaintiff has no title on the suit land and only claimed that the predecessor of the plaintiff got the oral settlement from the C.S recorded tenant and no record was prepared in the name of Abu Jafar Kha, predecessor of the plaintiff-opposite parties. She further submits that the suit land is a Bazar and the Assistant Commissioner of Land had given settlement of 14 shops and the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 prayed for settlement of the land and admittedly the plaintiffs are out of possession of the suit land and they are not entitled to get any order of injunction and the appellate Court without any basis or document found that the plaintiff had prima-facie title and possession on the suit land. She prayed for making the Rule absolute.

9Learned Advocate Mr. Mohammed Shamsul Alam appearing along with learned Advocate Mr. Md. Safed Ali on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite parties submits that Abu Jafar Kha, predecessor of the plaintiff-opposite parties obtained oral settlement of the suit land from the C.S recorded tenants Mosharaf Hossain Biswas, Ahed Ali Biswas, Jahiruddin Biswas, Janab Ali Kha and Aftabaddi Kha and now in possession of the suit land by constructing shops and the appellate Court below rightly arrived at a finding that the plaintiffs own the suit land and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the appellate Court below. He prayed for discharging the Rule.

10I have considered the submission of the learned Assistant Attorney General Ms. Mowsumi Akther who appeared on behalf of the petitioners and the

Page 3

learned Advocate Mr. Mohammed Shamsul Alam who appeared along with learned Advocate Mr. Md. Safed Ali on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite parties, perused the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, written objection filed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 5, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Courts below and the records.

11In the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it has been stated that Abu Jafar Kha, predecessor of the plaintiffs, obtained settlement of total .58 decimals of land from the C.S recorded tenants Mosharaf Hossain Biswas, Ahed Ali Biswas, Jahiruddin Biswas, Janab Ali Kha and Aftabaddi Kha and possessed the land by cultivating and subsequently constructing shops in the suit land. Nothing has been stated in the said application that after obtaining oral settlement, the suit land was recorded in the name of said Abu Jafar Kha. No rent receipt was filed before the trial Court that Abu Jafar Kha paid the rent.

12Admittedly, the suit land was recorded in the name of the East Pakistan Government during S. A and R.S operation. S.A and R.S record is the prima facie evidence of possession of the Government. In the written objection filed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 5, it has been asserted that the suit land is Patkelghata Bazar and 16 shops were given settlement in favour of the businessman of the said Bazar and the plaintiff Nos. 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 prayed for settlement of the shops to the Assistant Commissioner which has not been disputed by the learned Advocate for the opposite parties. It is found that no khatian was prepared in the name of Abu Jafar Kha and the plaintiff-opposite parties after the alleged oral settlement from the C.S recorded tenant, and subsequent S.A and R.S khatian was prepared in the name of the Government, I am of the view that there is no possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land. To get an order of injunction, the plaintiffs shall prove the possession in the suit land. Admittedly, the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 prayed for settlement to the AC, Land which proved that government own the land.

13In view of the above findings, observations and the proposition, I am of the view that the appellate Court below, without any basis, arrived at a finding that the plaintiffs have prima facie title and possession on the disputed land.

14I find merit in the Rule.

15In the result, the Rule is made absolute.

16The impugned judgment and order dated 09.06.2009 passed by the appellate Court below is hereby set aside.

Page 4

17The order of stay granted at the time of issuance of the Rule is hereby vacated.

18The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit positively within 6(six) months from the date of receipt of this order.

19Send down the lower Court’s records at once.

Related summaries.

High Court DivisionFirst Appeal 400/2015Sufia Khatun v Mohammad Mostafa Kamal and othersAppeal dismissed High Court DivisionCivil Revision 4059/2008Abdul Mannan and others v Government of Bangladesh and othersRule made absolute; trial decree restored High Court DivisionFirst Appeal 504/2000Samirendra Guha Roy v Shabana Khatun and othersAppeal allowed; suit dismissed

All judgment summaries →

Where TRW & Co can help

From the record to your case.

Our advocates appear before both divisions of the Supreme Court. These are the practice areas that handle matters like this one.

Practice areaReal Estate Disputes→Practice areaLand Registration & Title→Practice areaLand Records, Mutation & Khatian→

Keep reading