ABU TAHER Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.02.2007 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.1677 of 2003 discharging the Rule.

(2.) The case of the writ petitioners, in short, is that their father Md. Sirajul Hoque obtained a licence from the Bangladesh Railway (shortly the Railway) in respect of case Plot No. 32 of Mouza Sonaimuri, Noakhali in Miscellaneous Case No. 5942 of 1973 and paid licence fees to the Railway for the year 1972-73 and he paid licence fee up to the year 1980 as a lessee under the Railway. Thereafter, the Government demanded the case land as khas land the writ petitioner prayed for lease of the land from the Government and they were granted lease of .03 acre of land by the Government and subsequently the said area was increased by .04 acre. Their further case is that they were ready to pay the requisite licence/lease money in respect of the case land but the respondents did not accept any rent from the writ petitioners after 1401 B.S. Suddenly by two impugned orders issued on 21.09.2002 the writ petitioners were asked to vacate the case land and to remove the structures on the land within seven days.

(3.) The respondent Nos.1 and 3 contested the Rule by filing affidavit-in-opposition and denied the material allegations made in the writ petition. Their case is that the writ petitioner were granted yearly lease by after getting the yearly lease they failed to pay yearly fees and without permission of the Government they grabbed .01 acre of land and for that reason the yearly licence/lease was cancelled by the Government and they also violated the terms and conditions of the licence/lease agreement by erecting structure thereon and also grabbing .01 acre of land beyond that covered by the agreement. The further case is that the petitioner was served with notice of such violation of the terms of agreement and asked to explain their position. The further case is that the case land being the 'periphery' of the Hat and bazar there was no scope to give settlement to anybody of more than .500 acre or decimal of land. The respondents reiterate that the Government granted temporary licence to the writ petitioners for .03 acre of land on a yearly basis in Settlement Case No. 39/82-83, but the petitioners constructed pucca structure violating the conditions of the licence/lease agreement, i.e. the petitioners constructed 'two tin-shed pucca wall shops' and in the process grabbed an extra .01 Vi acre of land illegally. Inspite of notice served the petitioners neither responded nor removed the illegal structure from the case land.