NEKBAR ALI Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ-Petitioner, Nekbar Ali, seeks Leave to Appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.04.2006 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 6298 of 2003 discharging the Rule.

(2.) The case of the petitioner, in short, is that Mouzas namely Mohiran, Bagherpara and Payekpara originally belonged to Dorajhat Union Parished and Mouzas namely Mirpur, Talbaria and Dohakula belonged to Dohakula Union Parishad under Police Station- Bagharapara, District- Jessore; that the respondent No.1 vide notification being No. S.R.O. 214-Ain/2002 dated 3rd August, 2002 declared some portion of said mouzas as urban area and thereafter vide official Gazette dated 27.10.2007 included those are in Bangarapara Pourashava with effect from 30.10.2002; that those six mouzas are within Dorajhat Union Parishad and Dohakula Union Parishad. The aforesaid 2 union parishad are in existence for last hundred years and the inhabitable of those villages continued as voters of Union Parishads as a political unit. By the impugned order only a part of six villages have been included in the Pourashava leaving and keeping the remaining area as rural. Thus, the impugned order is discriminatory and it has affected the political unit and systems of the people of the left out area in respect of exercising their rights as voters of Pourashava; that the territorial and geographical location of those six villages of Dorajhat and Dohakula Union Parishad stand on the same footing and continued as a same political unit but by the impugned order a discrimination has been made and thus the impugned order is liable to be declared to have been made without any lawful authority and is of no legal effect; that the impugned notification was issued with a malafide intention illegally keeping some areas of those villages as rural. The inhabitants of the left out area repeatedly demanding for inclusion of those areas into the Pourashava and in the meantime the respondent No.3 has issued a notice for delimitation of the remaining area of those mouzas; that during the C.S. operation boundary of a mouza has been demarcated considering the various factors and each of the mouzas had been numbered in the jurisdiction list as J.L. number and without the process of State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, there is no provision to divide a mouza and in the instant case the respondents acted illegally and without lawful authority in dividing several mouzas without applying the provision of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act and thus the impugned order is liable to be declared to have been done without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

(3.) The respondent did not file any affidavit-in-opposition in the aforesaid writ petition.