Genuine Landowners Do Not Lose Their Title Due to Erroneous S.A. Record: High Court
 |
| Ownership of 40 decimals of land recognised on the basis of registered Kabuliats from 1927 and evidence of possession; Government's Khas Khatian entry held incorrect |
Recently, a single bench of the High Court Division comprising Justice Md. Riaz Uddin Khan delivered this judgment in Abdul Mannan and Others v. Government of Bangladesh and Others, Civil Revision No. 4059 of 2008. In its judgment dated 25 June 2026, the Court set aside the earlier judgment of the Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Cumilla, and restored the decree declaring the plaintiffs' title passed by the trial court. The full text of the judgment was published on the Supreme Court's website on 1 November 2026.
Background of the Case
The plaintiffs instituted a suit for declaration of title in 1987, claiming ownership of 40 decimals of land under Plot No. 707 in the Laksham area of Cumilla. Their case was that their predecessor, Rahimuddin, had obtained settlement of the 40 decimals of land from the Zamindar through two registered Kabuliats dated 27 September 1927. Thereafter, they continued to possess and enjoy the property by paying rent to the Zamindar and, following the abolition of the Zamindari system, to the Government.
They constructed houses, excavated a pond and maintained the graves of their predecessors on the land. However, a dispute arose when a portion of the land was recorded in the Government's Khas Khatian during the S.A. survey.
On the other hand, the Government contended that the original record described the land as Gabam Bhumi (grazing land), which was not available for private settlement. Accordingly, the plaintiffs had neither title nor possession over the disputed property.
Decision of the Lower Courts
On 28 February 1990, the Senior Assistant Judge, Laksham, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, declaring their title to the disputed land. However, following an appeal by the Government, the Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Cumilla, set aside that decree on 28 July 2008.
Being aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed a Civil Revision before the High Court Division.
Observations of the High Court
Upon examining the documents, evidence and report of the Advocate Commissioner, the High Court found that the plaintiffs' predecessor had acquired title to the land through two registered Kabuliats executed in 1927. The Government had neither challenged those Kabuliats nor established that they were forged or fabricated.
The Court further found that the rent receipts issued by the Zamindar contained the boundaries of the land corresponding to the schedules of the Kabuliats. The Advocate Commissioner's report also confirmed that the disputed property fell within the boundaries described in the Kabuliats.
Analysing Section 20 of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950, the Court observed that Gabam Bhumi was not included among the categories of land specified in that provision as non-retainable by the Zamindar or other relevant persons. Therefore, the appellate court's finding that the land was ineligible for settlement merely because it had been recorded as grazing land in the C.S. Khatian was not legally sustainable.
The Court also noted that out of 1.44 acres of land under the same plot, 82 decimals had been recorded in the S.A. Khatian in the name of Korban Ali, while the remaining 62 decimals had been recorded in the Government's Khas Khatian. However, Korban Ali and the plaintiffs' predecessor had obtained settlements through separate Kabuliats from the same Zamindar at the same time. In such circumstances, treating one portion of the same plot as eligible for settlement and the other as ineligible was discriminatory.
The Court observed that although a record of rights carries a rebuttable presumption regarding possession, such a presumption can be displaced through proper oral and documentary evidence. An erroneous record cannot, by itself, extinguish a person's title if that person can establish ownership through admissible evidence.
The Court particularly addressed the fact that the plaintiffs had claimed ownership of 40 decimals through two registered Kabuliats. One Kabuliat, being Deed No. 4411, was marked as Exhibit-1, while the other, Deed No. 4410, although duly submitted before the trial court, was inadvertently not marked as an exhibit.
The High Court held that the plaintiffs should not be prejudiced merely because the second document had not been formally marked as an exhibit due to an inadvertent omission. Accordingly, the Court considered the second Kabuliat from the lower court records in the interest of justice.
Decision of the Court
The High Court found that the plaintiffs had successfully established their title and possession through registered documents, rent receipts and oral evidence. Conversely, the Government failed to establish any credible basis for claiming title or possession over the disputed land.
The Court further held that the suit for declaration of title was maintainable in its present form, even without seeking a separate declaration that the subsequent S.A. or other records were erroneous.
Order of the High Court
The High Court made the Rule absolute. It set aside the judgment and decree dated 28 July 2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Cumilla, and restored the judgment and decree dated 28 February 1990 passed by the Senior Assistant Judge, Laksham, declaring the plaintiffs' title to the disputed land.
There was no order as to costs.
Legal Significance
Through this judgment, the High Court reaffirmed that an erroneous entry in a record of rights does not automatically extinguish the title of the genuine owner. Where ownership is established through registered title documents, long-standing possession, rent payment receipts and other credible evidence, the Court may grant appropriate relief against an incorrect record.
The judgment also highlights that a material document duly submitted before a court should not necessarily be disregarded merely because it was inadvertently not marked as an exhibit, particularly where consideration of that document is necessary to secure the ends of justice.
BD LAW POST / Masum
