Without making the actual landowner a defendant, later a deceased person was made a defendant in a case filed at the Barishal Zonal Settlement Office by Syeda Jahan Lovely, a resident of East and South Refugee Colony in the city.
Again, the notice of the filed case was not sent to the defendants from the Zonal Settlement Office. Upon hearing about it from locals, the actual landowner, carrying valid documents, applied to be included as a defendant in the filed case. On the scheduled hearing date, the Barishal Zonal Settlement Officer, Mridha Md. Mojahidul Islam, dismissed the case filed by the plaintiff in the presence of both parties’ lawyers.
When the applicant for defendant inclusion asked for a certified copy of the dismissal, the Peshkar and record keeper Md. Rafiqul Islam said, “Sir has given the order to dismiss in open court. If you apply for the certified copy, you will be given it.” Later, regarding the dismissal order and copy, the Barishal Zonal Settlement Officer and Peshkar Rafiq started making excuses. Rafiq said the copy had gone to the Nazarat section. From the Nazarat section, they said that the Barishal Zonal Settlement Officer had forbidden giving the dismissal copy. Barishal Zonal Settlement Officer Mridha Md. Mojahidul Islam said, “None of the defendant-inclusion applicants have come to me. I will be in the office next Monday (August 11). If they come then, I will look into the matter.”
During the investigation, an image of irregularities and corruption at the Barishal Zonal Settlement Office emerged.
According to Barishal Zonal Settlement Office sources, on February 26, 2025, Syeda Jahan Lovely, a resident of Ward 14 Refugee Colony in the city, filed a case (No. 121/25) at the Barishal Zonal Settlement Office under Section 42(k) of the 1956 Tenancy Rights Act, making four neighbors defendants: Delwar Hossain, Shafia Begum, Rizia Begum, and Habibur Rahman. Later, on March 18, 2025, the plaintiff applied in writing to remove defendant Habibur Rahman and instead include the name of Abdul Motaleb Howlader, who had died on January 30, 2008. None of the heirs of the late Motaleb knew about this.
In the description of Lovely’s case, it was stated that she applied for record and map correction for 3.35 decimals of land under DP Khatian Nos. 5224, 8647, 11386, and 1690 of Mouza No. 50 Bogura Alekanda, and BS Dag Nos. 13532, 13535, and 13536. However, the case description did not mention what is stated in Section 42(k).
According to the deed attached to the case, on December 3, 1997, Lovely purchased 3.35 decimals of land from three residents of the Refugee Colony. The deed, registered at Barishal Sadar Sub-Registrar Office (Deed No. 13767), shows on page 7 that in the schedule of the property, the BS DP Khatian is 11386, with BS Dag No. 13532 containing 2.10 decimals of land. This land is not recorded under the name of the seller Delwar Hossain & others in the location claimed by Lovely. However, Lovely’s purchased BS DP Khatian 5224, with BS Dag No. 13535 containing 1.25 decimals of land, is correct.
For the same land, Syeda Jahan Lovely also filed a civil case (No. 226/25) at the Barishal Sadar Senior Assistant Judge Court on May 12, 2025, making only one defendant—Roushan Ara Khatun, wife of Mahbub Alam of the Refugee Colony. That case is ongoing in court.
The investigation revealed that Section 42(k) of the 1956 Tenancy Rights Act concerns fraud and forgery. Yet, plaintiff Lovely herself filed the case with the assistance of the Zonal Settlement Office’s Peshkar and record keeper Md. Rafiqul Islam and known broker Nasir, committing fraud and forgery. Proof of this is that, according to the BS record issued by the Zonal Settlement Office, DP Khatian 8647 with BS Dag No. 13536 has only one owner—Roushan Ara Khatun. But plaintiff Lovely, without making the actual landowner Roushan Ara Khatun a defendant, included this DP 8647 and BS Dag 13536 in the case description.
Upon hearing about this from locals, Roushan Ara Khatun applied to be included as a defendant in Lovely’s filed case on April 28, 2025—almost two months later. The Barishal Zonal Settlement Officer accepted the application and, under his instruction, converted Lovely’s case from No. 121/25 to Miscellaneous Case No. 1363/25.
Meanwhile, the late Motaleb’s DP Khatian No. 1690, with BS Dag Nos. 13532 and 13535, saw 1.19 decimals of land in Dag 13535 falsely claimed as an inheritance by plaintiff Lovely. The late Motaleb’s son, Tarikul Islam, and daughter, Momtaz Begum, said that neither they nor their seven siblings knew anything about this case. They also said none of them sold land to Lovely.
Roushan Ara Khatun and the late Motaleb Howlader were neither heirs nor relatives of plaintiff Lovely’s deed sellers—Delwar Hossain, Rizia Begum, and Safia Begum. They were merely neighbors. Plaintiff Lovely tried to alter the official government 51-seat map’s Dag Nos. 13535 and 13536 to match her deed, thereby attempting to seize land belonging to Roushan Ara Khatun and the late Motaleb Howlader.
On July 29, 2025, the Barishal Zonal Settlement Officer, in the presence of both parties, ordered the dismissal of Miscellaneous Case No. 1363. This fact was confirmed by defendant side lawyers Md. Bahadur Shah, Tapon Kumar, and Sanjib Kumar Sarkar. However, on July 30, 2025, at noon, after Lovely, along with her lawyer Samiton Choy Das, stayed for about an hour in the Zonal Settlement Officer’s chamber, the entire situation changed.
When contacted by phone over the issue , Syeda Jahan Lovely disconnected the phone immediately upon hearing the journalist’s identity.
