High Court Division · Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Abdul Mannan and others v Government of Bangladesh and others
Civil Revision 4059/2008 · Rule made absolute; trial decree restored · Decided 25 June 2026
The plaintiffs sued in Title Suit No. 74 of 1987 in Laksham, Cumilla for a declaration of title to .40 acres, claiming through two registered kabuliyats of 1927 from the zamindar and long possession as homestead. The Government contended that the land, recorded in the C.S. khatian as grazing land, fell in S.A. khas khatian No. 1 and that the plaintiffs had neither title nor possession. The trial court decreed the suit, but the Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Cumilla allowed the Government's appeal, holding that grazing land was non-retainable khas land of the zamindars. The High Court Division found that the rent receipts and the advocate commissioner's report tied the kabuliyats to the suit land, that Government rent receipts up to 1958 recognised the plaintiffs' predecessor as tenant, that section 20 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 does not exclude grazing land, and that part of the same plot stood recorded to a private settlee. It made the Rule absolute and restored the trial court's decree.
- Whether land recorded in the C.S. khatian as grazing land was non-retainable by the landlord and therefore not open to settlement under section 20 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950.
- Whether the plaintiffs proved title and possession under two registered kabuliyats of 1927 despite the suit land being recorded in the S.A. record as Government khas land.
- Whether the revisional court could consider a registered kabuliyat that was filed in time but inadvertently not marked as an exhibit.
- Section 20 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950 does not list grazing land among the classes of land that a landlord could not retain, so the appellate court's finding that the suit land could not be settled had no legal basis.
- The Government cannot treat one part of the same plot as retainable, where it is recorded in a private person's name, and another part as non-retainable, as that is discriminatory.
- A record of rights raises only a rebuttable presumption of possession, and title cannot be taken away by a mere wrong record where the party proves title and comes to court within time.
- The revisional court may consider a registered deed submitted by a party in due time but inadvertently not marked as an exhibit, rather than remanding the case only for that purpose.
- Where the plaintiffs prove title and possession, they need not seek a separate declaration that the S.A. or later records are wrong, and the suit is maintainable in its present form.
It is also settled by our Apex Court that by mere wrong record the title of any party cannot be taken away if that party can prove that within reasonable and limitation period they came before the court.
