BANGLADESH Vs. SUBASH CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal and the two petitions were heard together and are now disposed by this judgment. The appeal, at the instance of the Government, is directed against the High Court Division's judgment and order dated November 28, 1991 passed in Writ Petition No. 343 of 1987, striking down an acquisition notification.

(2.) In their Writ Petition before the High Court Division respondent Nos. 1-3, washermen by profession, challenged the acquisition asserting, inter alia, that as owners in possession they have been using the case land from time immemorial, as the vacant northern portion of their ancestral homestead, for washing and drying clothes. In the first week of January, 19815 they came to know that the Authorised Officer and Lend Acquisition Officer, Dhaka in June, 1984 issued a notice under section 3 of the Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982 (Ordinance No. II of 1982) for acquisition of their said land in LA Case No. 49/1983-84 for extension of Darul Ulum Ahsania Madrassa. The notice was suppressed and not served on them. On January 21, 1985 the respondents filed an objection before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (LA), Dhaka, but having had no (response thereto they filed another objection petition on February 6, 1985 before the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Land Administration and Land Reforms, but that objection petition was rejected without giving any hearing to them. On April 6, 1985 the respondents filed another objection petition before the Minister of Land Administration and Land Reforms who was pleased to direct the Land Reforms Commissioner to enquire into the matter. After an open and on the spot enquiry into the matter the Commissioner submitted his report clearly holding that the case land was not essential for the alleged purpose of acquisition and that there was sufficient vacant space in the Madrassa premises as well as in the adjoining area which could be acquired for extension of the Madrassa in question. By an order dated June 6, 1985 the respondents were informed that the Government decided not to acquire the case land of the petitioners and requested the Additional Deputy Commissioner to annul all actions taken in this regard and that if the requiring body still insisted on acquisition of land, alternative sites should be selected. In spite of the aforesaid decision of the Government the Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka, proceeded with acquisition of the case land and published the impugned notification on November 6, 1986 finally acquiring the case land,

(3.) The appellant's case is, that the respondents' land was validly acquired for a public purpose and that on reconsideration the order dated June 4, 1985 was cancelled by the Government by another order dated September 9, 1985, and, thereafter, the acquisition proceedings were completed by issuing the impugned Notification dated November 6, 1986.