BANGLADESH Vs. SAMONDRA NARAYAN MAHAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 31-8-1997 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 1804 of 1994 making the Rule absolute.

(2.) Short facts are that the writ petitioner-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed the writ petition challenging the order passed by the petitioners refusing to release the excess and unutilised land measuring 54 decimals acquired in LA Case No. 83 of 1960-1961 in compliance with the decision of the authority contained in Memo dated 28-6-1990 (Annexure A) to the writ petition stating, inter alia, that the writ petitioner-respondents are the legal owners of the acquired land situated in Mouza South Kattali, PS Pahartali, District-Chittagong and the same was acquired for housing estate and for construction of link road. After the said acquisition only about 46 decimals of the land of the respondents out of 1.26 acres in total were utilised for the construction of the 60 feet wide pucca link road between Kattali road and Halishahar Housing Society. As a result 54 decimals of land on both sides of the road were left unutilised from the very beginning and the same was, at all material times, under the continuous possession of the writ petitioner-respondents. The Government neither utilised the said land nor took over possession of the same. The further case is that the Government decided to return the unutilised acquired land to the lawful owners and accordingly, a circular dated 22-5-1986 (Annexure-E to the writ petition) was issued. Thereafter, the writ petitioners submitted representation in April 1987 to the respondent leave petitioner No.3, the Deputy Commissioner, Chittagong for returning the unutilised acquired land measuring 54 decimals to the writ petitioner-respondents. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner directed Executive Engineer, Housing and Settlement Division, Chittagong to derequisition the same but it was not done. Thereafter, the writ petitioner sent another representation on 2-6-1987 to the respondent-leave petitioner No.1 praying for release of the said unutilised land in their favour. On the basis of this representation, the Ministry of Works obtained opinion of Chief Engineer, Housing and Settlement regarding de-requisition of the unutilised land but ultimately, no action was taken. Thereafter, another application was filed on 7-3-1989 but no action was taken for release of the land in their favour.

(3.) The appellants contested the Rule by filing affidavit-in-opposition contending, inter alia, that in LA Case No. 83 of 1960-1961 the aforesaid land was acquired and, there was a proposal for construction of 90 feet wide road but 60 feet wide road was constructed and in future the land may be required for extension of the road and, as such, the land should not be released in favour of the writ petitioner-respondents.