Bangladesh & others Vs. Al-haj Zahurul Islam & others, 3 LNJ AD (2013) 23

Case No: Civil Appeal Nos. 174-177 of 2000

Judge: Syed Mahmud Hossain,

Court: Appellate Division ,,

Advocate: Mahbubey Alam,Rafique-ul-Huq,Md. Nawab Ali,,

Citation: 3 LNJ AD (2013) 23

Appellant: Bangladesh & others

Respondent: Al-haj Zahurul Islam & others

Subject: Land Law, Requisition of Property,

Delivery Date: 2012-11-14


APPELLATE DIVISION
(CIVIL)
 
Surendra Kumar Sinha, J
Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah, J
Nazmun Ara Sultana, J.
Syed Mahmud Hossain, J
Muhammad Imman Ali, J.

 
Judgment on
14.11.2012
  Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land and others
. . . .Appellants (In all the appeals)
Mohammadpur Housing Pisci Culture and Farming Co-operative Society Ltd
....Petitioner (In C. P. Nos. 310-12/99)
-Versus-
Al-haj Zahurul Islam being dead his heirs: 1(ka). Mrs. Suraya Islam and others
....Respondents (C. A. No. 174/2000)
Md. Rafique Mia
.... Respondents (C. A. No. 175/2000)
Shamsul Azahar Khan and others
.... Respondents (C. A. No. 176/2000)
Md. Rafique Mia and others
. . . Respondents (C. A. No. 177/2000)
Al-haj Zahurul Islam being dead his heirs: 1(ka). Mrs. Suraya Islam and others
. . . Respondents (C. A. No. 310/99)
Md. Rafique Mia being dead his heirs: 1(ka) Mrs. Azar Banu and others
.... Respondents (C. A. No. 311-312/99)
 
 
(Emergency) Requisition of Property Act (XIII of 1948)
Section 7(e)
The assessment of compensation made by the learned Subordinate Judge having been made on proper appreciation of facts and laws should not be interfered with. The High Court Division also found that the compensation was assessed in accordance with law. Admittedly, with the passage of time, the price of the land has increased manifold and because of filing of unnecessary appeals by the Government, the respondents of the concerned appeals were deprived of getting the compensation money earlier and the compensation assessed more than three decades back is shockingly low in comparison with the present market value. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed without any order as to costs. ...(12, 13 and 14)
 
For the Appellants (In all the Apeals): Mr. Mahbubey Alam, Attorney General, instructed by Mr. Mvi. Md. Wahidullah, Advocate-on-Record.
For the Petitioners (In all the Petitions): Mr. Rafique-ul-Huq, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mr. Mvi. Md. Wahidullah, Advocate-on-Record.
Respondent Nos. 1 (i)-(vi) (In C. A. No. 174/2000): Mr. Md. Nawab Ali, Advocate-on-Record.
Respondent Nos. 2-13 (In C. A. No. 174/2000): Not represented.  
Respondents (In C. A. No. 175-177/2000): Not represented.
Respondents (In C. A. No. 310-312/2000):: Not represented.
 
Civil Appeal Nos. 174-177 of 2000.
(From the judgment and order dated 05.12.1994 passed by the High Court Division in First Miscellaneous Appeal No.706 of 1991; those dated 04.09.1994 passed in First Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.744, 707 and 742 of 1991 respectively)
WITH
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos. 310-312 of 1999.
(From the judgment and order dated 02.02.1999 passed by the High Court Division in First Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.739, 743 and 740 of 1991 respectively)
 
JUDGMENT
Syed Mahmud Hossain, J.

These appeals, by leave, by the Government-appellants arise out of the judgments and orders dated 05.12.1994 and 04.09.1994 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in First Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 706, 744, 707 and 742 of 1991 dismissing the appeals and upholding the judgments and orders dated 17.03.1991, 28.08.1991, 20.04.1991, 23.04.1991 and 30.04.1991 passed by the learned Subord-inate Judge, Arbitration Court, Dhaka in Arbitration Case Nos.10 of 1986, 129 of 1988, 108 of 1987 and 130 of 1988 respectively.

Civil Appeal Nos.174, 175, 176 and 177 of 2000 have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment as they do involve common questions of laws and facts.

The factual matrix involved in these appeals as it is placed before this Division, in a nutshell, is that in L. A. Case No. 54/77-78 of Dhaka Collectorate, some lands were acquired for Mohammadpur Housing Pisciculture and Farming Co-operative Society Ltd. in Mouza-Ramchandrapur under Mohammadpur Police Station, District-Dhaka, under the provisions of (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act,1948. The Collector assessed the compensation for ‘chala’ and ‘bhiti’ lands at the rate of Tk.4,65,700/- per acre. Being dissatisfied with the said rate of compensation, the respondents of the respective appeals filed the aforesaid arbitration cases before the learned Subordinate Judge, Arbitration Court, Dhaka claiming compensation at the rate of Tk.50,00,000/- per acre for ‘bhiti’ and ‘chala’ lands and Tk.30,00,000/- for ‘bhiti’ lands. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the compensation at the rate of Tk.18,75,000/- per acre for ‘bhiti’ land, Tk.15,62,000/- for ‘chala’ lands and Tk.12,50,000/- for nal lands.

Against the judgments passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, the appellants preferred First Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.706, 744, 707 and 742 of 1991 before the High Court Division. The learned Judges of the High Court Division after hearing the parties by their judgments and orders dated 05.12.1994 and 04.09.1994 dismissed the appeals upholding the rate of compensation assessed by the learned Subordinate Judge.

Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgments and orders dated 05.12.1994 and 04.09.1994  passed by the High Court Division,  the Government as the leave-petitioner filed Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.88 of 1995 and 58-60 of 1995 before this Division and obtained leave on 27.07.2000 resulting in Civil Appeal Nos.174-177 of 2000.

Mr. Mahbubey Alam, learned Attorney General, appearing on behalf of the appellant in all the appeals, submits that the then learned Subordinate Judge arbitrarily assessed the compensation at the rate of Tk.18,75,000/- per acre for ‘bhiti’ lands, Tk.15,62,000/- for ‘chala’ lands and Tk.12,50,000/- for nal lands and that the High Court Division without considering the rationale of assessment of compensation by the learned Subordinate Judge affirmed the awards passed by the learned Subordinate Judge.

Mr. Md. Nawab Ali, learned Advocate-on-Record, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 (i)-(vi) in Civil Appeal No.174 of 2000, supports the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court Division.

Mr. Rafique-ul-Haque, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the leave petitioners in all the Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal, submits that the High Court Division was wrong in deciding not to hear the appeals filed by the petitioners.

We have considered the submissions of the learned Attorney General, the learned Advocate-on-Record and learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners of Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal Nos.310-312 of 1999, the impugned judgments and the papers incorporated in the paper book.

At the very outset, it is necessary to go through the submissions of the learned Attorney General, on which, leave was granted by this Division as under:

“The average value of the properties of similar description and advantage in the vicinity of the respondent’s land during the 24 months preceding the date of the service of notice under sub-section (1a) of section 5 of the said Act, the assessment of compensation by the learned Arbitrator was made in contravention of the principles laid down in the proviso (i) to section 7(e) of the (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act,1948 and on the basis of no evidence and hence, the High Court Division erred in law in upholding the awards made by the learned Arbitrator.”
 
Admittedly, in L.A. Case No.54/77-78 of Dhaka Collectorate was initiated to acquire some lands for Mohammadpur Housing Pisci culture and Farming Co-operative Society Ltd. in Mouza-Ramchandrapur under Mohammadpur Police Station, District-Dhaka, under the provisions of (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948. The Collector assessed the compensation of ‘chala’ and ‘bhiti’ lands at the rate of Tk. 4,65,7000/- per acre. Being dissatisfied with the rate of compensation, the respondents of the respective appeals filed the arbitration cases before the learned Subordinate Judge, Arbitration Court, Dhaka claiming compensation at the rate of  Tk.50,00,000/- per acre for ‘bhiti’ and ‘chala’ lands and Tk. 30,00,000/- for ‘nal’ lands. The learned Subordinate Judge allowed the compensation at the rate of Tk.18,75,000/- per acre for ‘bhiti’ lands, Tk.15,62,000/- for ‘chala’ lands and Tk. 12,50,000/- for nal lands.

From the record, it appears that Mouza-Ramchandrapur is adjacent to Mouza-Kafrul from which lands were acquired the in L.A. case and the rate of compensation of the nal lands situated within Kafrul mouza was assessed at the rate of Tk.12,50,000/- per acre and in about 100 first miscellaneous appeals, the High Court Division affirmed this rate of compensation. We are of the view that the learned Subordinate Judge has not committed any error either in law or in fact in assessing the compensation of the nal lands acquired. The assessment of compensation made by the learned Subordinate Judge having been made on proper appreciation of facts and laws should not be interfered with. The High Court Division also found that the compensation was assessed in accordance with law.

Admittedly, with the passage of time, the price of the land has increased manifold and because of filing of unnecessary appeals by the Government, the respondents of the concerned appeals were deprived of getting the compens-ation money earlier and the compensation assessed more than three decades back is shockingly low in comparison with the present market value. 

In the light of the findings made before, we do not find any substance whatsoever in all the appeals. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed without any order as to costs.

Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos.310-312 of 1999 against the order of the High Court Division not to hear the writ petitions on the ground of pendency of Civil Appeals before the Appellate Division are also dismissed. The leave petitioners of the civil petitions for leave to appeal may take step before the High Court Division in getting their writ petitions disposed of on merit. 

End.