‘No temporary injunction without proof of land ownership’

A temporary injunction cannot be granted merely because there is a dispute over land ownership.

To obtain such an injunction, the applicant must present credible prima facie evidence to support their claim.

The High Court has observed that a temporary injunction cannot be issued based solely on claims of possession, the existence of certain documents, or the completion of a mutation (record-of-rights update).

This observation was made by a single-judge bench of the High Court, presided over by Justice Md. Riaz Uddin Khan, while dismissing an application concerning a land ownership dispute in Shibganj, Chapainawabganj.

The verdict, delivered on September 10, was published on October 18. The plaintiffs—the late Md. Ishak Ali and his heirs—claimed that they purchased the disputed land through a deed dated February 9, 1944, and had been in possession of it ever since.

The plaintiffs alleged that the names of other individuals were erroneously included in the land’s record-of-rights (khatian). Furthermore, they asserted ownership based on a judgment and decree obtained in a title suit filed in 1977.

The plaintiffs further alleged that their mutation was subsequently cancelled, and the land was leased out to others. Consequently, they filed a lawsuit to protect their rights over the land and sought a temporary injunction.

Conversely, the government side argued that the disputed land falls under the category of “vested property.”

They also challenged the authenticity of the documents presented by the plaintiffs, as well as the validity of the judgment and decree from the earlier 1977 title suit.

Although the trial court initially granted a temporary injunction, it was later withdrawn.

Subsequently, an Additional District Judge remanded the case, directing an examination of whether the land constitutes “vested property” and whether the primary lawsuit can legally proceed under these circumstances.

The plaintiffs filed a civil revision petition in the High Court against this decision.

Upon reviewing the case records, the High Court noted that one of the primary bases for the plaintiffs’ ownership claim is an unregistered deed from 1944.

Additionally, questions remain regarding the authenticity of the judgment and decree from the 1977 title suit. The certified copies of the judgment and decree presented to the court did not match the entries in the relevant case register.

Although the plaintiffs referred to the correction of the land mutation and an amended SA (Survey and Settlement) Khatian, they failed to produce the corresponding Khatian or mutation documents before the court.

Consequently, the High Court observed that the necessary prima facie evidence to support the claim of ownership over the land had not been established.

In its judgment, the court stated that before granting a temporary injunction, it is essential to verify whether there is admissible evidence to support the plaintiff’s claim. Furthermore, it must be considered whether the main suit is maintainable under the law.

The court also discussed Sections 7 and 13 of the Vested Property Return Act, 2001.

However, as the original plaint of the main suit was not placed before the High Court, the court did not reach a final conclusion regarding the legal maintainability of the suit.

The High Court noted that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient prima facie evidence to substantiate their claim of land ownership. Moreover, no legal error was found that would warrant interference with the lower court’s decision.

Subsequently, the High Court discharged the rule in the civil revision and vacated the earlier interim order.

At the same time, the court directed the lower court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible—if it remains pending—to avoid unnecessary delays.