IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH
(HIGH COURT DIVISION)
Writ Petition No. 171 of 1978
Decided On: 29.05.1979
Appellants: Bakul Rani Sen Gupta and another
Vs.
Respondent: Bangladesh and others
**Hon’ble Judges:**Abdur Rahman Chowdhury and A.T.M. Afzal, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Md. Nurul Huq with A.B.M. Khairul Hague, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: Anwarul Huque Chowdhury, D.A.G., For Respondent No. 2, Habibur Rahman Khan, For Respondent No. 4
Subject: Land Laws
Catch Words
Mentioned IN
Disposition:
Petition Allowed
JUDGMENT
Abdur Rahman Chowdhury, J.
- This rule is directed against an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narsingdi declaring the property as vested property and leasing on the same to Respondent No: 4.
Short facts leading to this rule are that the property in question belonged to late Chitta Ranjan Sen Gupta alias Chitta Ranjan Sen, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners who are in possession of the property’s exclusive share by virtue of an amicable partition amongst the co-sharers. The right, title and possession of the petitioners in the property was declared by a decree passed in title Suit No. 10 of 1970 which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The petitioners, further case was that while they were thus in peaceful possession of the property, the same was suddenly and without any notice to them declared as vested property by an order dated 27.12,77 at the instance of one Sona Mia (Respondent No. 4) who also succeeded in obtaining lease of the property from the authorities. The petitioners then moved this Court and obtained the present rule.
The rule is contested by respondent Nos. 2 and 4. The learned Deputy Attorney General has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 2 but did not file any affidavit in opposition while respondent No. 4 has filed an affidavit to which the petitioners have filed a reply.
We have heard the learned advocate and perused the petition, the Affidavit and the reply thereto.
-
The averments made in the petition have not been challenged by the main respondent (respondent No. 2) by filing any affidavit. It is not disputed that the petitioners are Bangladeshi Nationals living in this country. Their assertion that they have valid right, title and possession in the property in question is affirmed by the Judgment and decree passed by the 2nd Court of Munsif at Narayanganj in Title suit No. 10 of 1970 on 18-12-73, in which respondent Sona Mia was one of the main defendants which included the Government represented' by the Deputy Commissioner. The certified copies of the said judgment and decree was produced before us by the petitioners at the time of hearing. By the said judgment the right, title and interest of the petitioners in the property in question was declared and possession of the property was restored to the petitioners through Court by evicting the defendants including respondent Sona Miai Title Appeal No. 44 of 1474 preferred by Sona Mia against the said decree was dismissed by the District Judge, Dacca. Thereafter, it appears that at the instance of respondent Sona Mia the property was declared as vested property and even before the lease was granted, Sona Mia was inducted into possession of the property. Be that as it may, having regard to the decree passed by a competent Civil Court declaring the right, title and possession of the petitioners in the property in question, we are clearly of the opinion that the impugned order declaring the property as vested property cannot be sustained.
-
Before parting with the case we are constrained to observe that the annexures to the petition revealed a very sad and deplorable state of affairs, it appears from the order sheet of the Miscellaneous case No. 155 of 1977 annexed to the Petition that even before the property in question was declared as vested property, respondent Sona Mia applied for lease of the property and succeeded in obtaining a favourable, report from the local Tahsilder (respondent No. 3). Thereafter, the property was declared as vested property by an order dated 27-12-1977 and possession was delivered to the respondent Tahsilder who is his turn inducted Sona Mia into possession of the property on the same date.' The proposal for leasing out the property to Sona Mia was approved, by the Authority concerned on 2-1-78. It was apparent from the records that the Tahsilder, (respondent No. 3) and Sona Mia (respondent No. 4) acted in collusion with each other in securing the impugned order and throwing the petitioners out of their lawful possession. In our considered opinion, it would be just and proper to award exemplary costs against the Tahsilder and Sona Mia who were responsible for harassing a helpless widow and her minor son and depriving them of their lawful right to enjoy their own property. It is also singularly unfortunate that a responsible officer like the Sub-Divisional Officer (respondent No. 2) should have passed the impugned order with, out applying his mind and without affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard in the matter.
-
Here is a glaring example of extreme high handedness on the part of responsible public officials who, it appears, acted in utter disregard of that law they were duty bound to obey. A helpless widow and her minor son were arbitrarily and without any lawful authority thrown out of their hearth and home without any notice and without affording them an opportunity of being heard. The decree passed by a competent Civil Court declaring the right, title and possession of the petitioners in the property was ignored by officials concerned, although in the decree, the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No. 1) was impleaded as defendant No. 91 All the allegations remain unchallenged since no affidavit was filed on behalf of the Government. Such high handedness if over-looked and allowed to go unchecked might (we are afraid) undermine the confidence of the citizens in the administration and bring slur on the fair name of the Government. It is a case where we feel the Government may consider instituting a departmental enquiry and take exemplary action against the delinquent officials in the interest of justice and fair play. In the result, the impugned order dated 27.12.77 passed in Miscellaneous case No. 155 of 1977 by the Sub-Divisional Officer Narsingdi is hereby declared to have been passed without any lawful authority and Is of no legal effect. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Narsingdi (respondent No. 2) is directed to restore possession of the property in question to the petitioners within IS (fifteen) days from date. The respondent No. 3 and 4 are directed to pay costs of Taka 1,000.00 each to the petitioners. Respondent No. 3, the Tahsilder is held personally liable for the costs and shall pay out of his own funds.
The rule is accordingly made absolute with costs to be paid as directed above.
A.T.M. Afzal, J.
I agree.