LAWS(BANG)-2006-2-1

AMC BENNETT Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH

Decided On February 06, 2006
Amc Bennett Appellant
V/S
Government Of Bangladesh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why they should not be directed to refrain from transacting any business on the provisional list Annexure D, pending disposal of the applications of the petitioners for rehabilitation plots of Mouza Bailjuree corresponding to Sector 11 of the Uttara Residential Model Town.

(2.) The material facts for disposal of this Rule are, that the petitioner's predecessor's lands were requisitioned and acquisitioned in LA Case No. 2 of 1987-88 under the provision of the Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982. The respondent No. 2, Ministry of Lands, imposed a precondition amongst others, that the family of the owners affected by the acquisition would be awarded in advance a plot measuring an area comprising 3-5 Khatas, by a Circular issued on 28-11-1988 and such allotment must follow before finalisation of the acquisition process as measures of rehabilitation of the affected owners. The petitioners are awardees in the said LA Case No. 2/1987-88 and they are entitled to allotment of alternative plots of land before the completion of the process of acquisition in the LA Case. The respondent No. 3 by notice published in the daily "Janakhanta" dated 12-11-1997 invited applications from the intending persons for allotment of plots in the Uttara Model Town excluding Sectors 1-9. In the said notice, the applications from the affected persons of Sector No. 11 were also invited, and the petitioners are the residents of Sector 11. The respondent No. 3 intended to allot plots to the affected persons in question, and the respondent No. 3 reserved the authority to accept or reject the application of the petitioners although they are affected persons. The petitioners in response to the notice dated 12-11-1997 individually applied to the Authority, as affected persons, for a plot in the proposed extension of Uttara Model Town scheme complying with the conditions contained in the said notice and the prospectus and the petitioners also observed all formalities in making the applications for allotment and claimed that they are entitled to DIT plots from Bailzuri mouza comprising Sector 11 of the Uttara Model Town. No allotment having been made to the petitioners pursuant to their application the petitioners filed writ petition Nos. 2885 and 2893 and 2889 and 2892 and 2895, 2897 and 2897 and 2898 in the year 1998 and those Writ Petitions were heard and judgment was delivered in Writ Petition No. 2885 of 1998 of the petitioner No. 1 and judgment of other writ petitions were also delivered thereafter (Annexure A-A6). It has been contended that although it was the legal obligation of the respondents to make advance allotment of plots before acquisition but it has not been done in spite of the judgment and directions of this court. The right of the petitioners to have allotment of plots in advance, for rehabilitation purpose are benefits that arise out of the land, and, as such, benefit is immovable property and such right is an inalienable right of the petitioners to the property. Despite notice given to the respondents, the respondents did not care to take up the case of the petitioners for consideration, thereafter, the petitioners served a notice demanding justice on 2411-2001 for mitigating their grievance. In supplementary affidavits filed by all the petitioners, it has been stated that they are affected persons in LA Case No. 2 of 1987-88 and the awards were prepared in their names. It has been stated in the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner Nos. 1-5 that the petitioners purchased the lands from the original owners by different registered sale deeds in the year of 1997 and by their purchase the petitioners became the affected persons consequent to the acquisition and accordingly, their names were in the award list. The petitioner Nos. 1-5 got information that some of the co-purchasers namely, Afroza Sultana and another, got allotment of plots on the basis of their sale deeds and the petitioners are also entitled to same kind of allotment of plots to be made by the RAJUK.

(3.) The respondent No. 3 has filed affidavit-in-opposition and also filed a supplementary affidavit-in-opposition stating, inter alia, that at the time of acquisition of the land in question the Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK) placed the entire estimated amount of compensation for the lands to be acquired at the disposal of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka as per his requirement and the Additional Deputy Commissioner (LA) had paid the compensation money to the bona fide affected persons and after acquisition the lands in question and other lands in LA case No. 2/87-88 vested in RAJUK free from all encumbrances. The petitioners are neither the owners nor the affected family, as such, they cannot claim allotment of residential plots as the right to allotment will depend on the internal policy of RAJUK. After scrutiny of the papers and documents some application were found to be genuine affected persons and they have already been allotted plots by the respondent No. 3, and the present petitioners are not affected persons and, as such, no allotment was made in their favour. After payment of compensation to the bona fide affected persons the ADC (LA), on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, handed over physical possession of the acquisitioned lands of Bailjuree Mouza to RAJUK on 18-9-90, 23-9-90, 27-9-90, 18-1-90 and 24-1-1990 after completing the process of acquisition and the property acquired vested absolutely in the RAJUK. Having taken over possession of the land RAJUK proceeded to develop such lands along with other lands by earth filling for establishing the said residential model town. The petitioner purchased the acquired land of said LA Case No. 2/87-88 on different dates in the year of 1997 and, as such, the purchase is not permissible under law and the petitioners have not acquired any right, title and interest by purchase subsequent to acquisition and they are not and cannot be said to be the affected persons. The persons whose lands were acquired are only entitled to have compensation, and as of right they cannot claim alternative plot under the rehabilitation scheme.