LAWS(BANG)-2004-6-6

RAJSHAHI DEVELOP­MENT AUTHORITY Vs. SULTAN AHMED, ADVOCATE

Decided On June 29, 2004
Rajshahi Develop­Ment Authority Appellant
V/S
Sultan Ahmed, Advocate Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by leave is to consider the points raised in the leave petition as under:

(2.) Mr. Ozair Farooq, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the proceeding having been taken to requisition the land with a view to acquisition in LA Case No. 161 of 1978-79 under the provision of Emergency Requisition of Property Act for the development of commercial area, Zone-13 under Rajshahi Town Development Authority and the compensation money thereto having been determined complying with the provision of section 5 and accordingly, assessed the compensation, the appellant is not liable to pay the present compensation money at the market rate to the writ-petitioner inasmuch as the provision of Requisition and Acquisition of Property Act, 1982 has no manner of application in respect of the pending acquisition proceeding under the Act of 1948.

(3.) Mr. Sultan Ahmed, the respondent No.1 appearing in person has, however, submitted that though notice for acquisition was served soon after the proceeding has been started in 1978-1979 but no notice under section 5(1) (a) and 5(3) of the Act were served inasmuch as to gazette notification as required under section 5(7) of the Act was ever published. Moreover, the requiring body did not utilise the entire 12 decimals of land for which the writ-petitioner-respondent prayed for the requisition of the property or failed to publish the notification of acquisition under section 5(7) of the Act on payment of compensation at the present market rate. Mr. Ahmed has referred to a decision in the case of Bangladesh vs. Basharatullah reported in 42 DLR (AD) 91 in support of his contention and submitted that since the date of requisition the value of the land having been increased substantially, the writ-petitioner is entitled to compensation at the present market rate for acquisition of his property on the principle that there should be proximity between the notice of acquisition and that of actual acquisition.