Md. Mujibar Rahmand & ors. Vs. Bangladesh and others, 3 LNJ (2014) 369

Case No: Writ Petition No. 92 of 2013

Judge: Salma Masud Chowdhury,

Court: High Court Division,,

Advocate: Mahbubey Alam,Mr. Md. Mokleshur Rahman,Mr. Md. Toufiq Inam,,

Citation: 3 LNJ (2014) 369

Case Year: 2014

Appellant: Md. Mujibar Rahmand & others

Respondent: Bangladesh and others

Subject: Monetary Compensation,

Delivery Date: 2014-03-10


HIGH COURT DIVISION
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)
 
Salma Masud Chowdhury, J.
   
And
Md. Habibul Gani, J

Judgment on
10.03.2014
  Md. Mujibar Rahman and another
. . . Petitioners
-Versus-
Bangladesh, represented by the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development Division, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka and others
. . . Respondents
 
 
Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance (II of 1982)
Section 3
The properties in question were lawfully acquired by the respondents for the purpose of establishing a graveyard. The possession has been taken by the respondents and the function of graveyard has already started. The respondents initiated L.A. Case No. 1/2011-2012 under the relevant provisions of the Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982 for the project and issued notice in ফরম-ফ under section 3 of the said Ordinance in August, 2011 giving a Schedule of land declared to be have been proposed for acquisition by the respondents for the purpose of the said project containing lands of Katasur and Sultanganj, Police Station-Mohammadpur, District-Dhaka. The acquisition process was never questioned or challenged from any quarter. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved for not being rehabilitated after the acquisition and for not being compensated. The learned Attorney General undertakes before that the rehabilitation program will be implementated as early as possible and the petitioner will definitely be rehabilitated and duly compensated under due process of law within the shortest period of time. . . . (5)

None appears
---For the Petitioner.

Mr. Mahbubey Alam, A. G. with
Mr. Md. Mokleshur Rahman, D. A. G. with
Ms. Farida Yeasmin, A. A. G. and
Mr. Titus Hillol Rema, A. A. G.
---For the Respondents

Mr. Md. Toufiq Inam
---For the respondent No. 3.

Writ Petition No. 92 of 2013
 
JUDGMENT
Salma Masud Chowdhury, J.
 
This Rule Nisi was issued calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the proceeding in the Land Acquisition being L.A. Case No.1/2011-2012 so far as it relates to the land owned and possessed by the petitioners should not be declared to be done without lawful authority and is of no legal effect and is in contravention of Article 27,31,42 and 44 of the Constitution and why the respondents should not be directed to exclude the petitioners said land in compliance with the earlier procee-dings of the L.A. Case No. 12/2007-2008 and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

In the present Writ Petition the petitioner challenged the proceedings of the Case Land Acquisition (L.A.) Case No. 1/2011-2012 so far it relates to the land owned and possessed by the petitioner and further prays for a direction upon the respondents to rehabilitate of the petitioner.

None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

Mr. Mahbubey Alam, the learned Attorney General appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the property in question was acquired for the purpose of developing the property for graveyard under a project and accordingly possession was taken by the City Corporation and the function of the graveyard has already started. He next submits that direction was sought for upon the respondents to rehabilitate the petitioner. The learned Attorney General submits before the Court that the petitioners will be rehabilated and properly compensated, under the due process of law.

We have heard the learned Attorney General representing the respondents and perused the Writ Petition along with other materials on record. It appears that the properties in question were lawfully acquired by the respondents for the purpose of establishing a graveyard. The possession has been taken by the respondents and the function of graveyard has already started. The respondents initiated L.A. Case No. 1/2011-2012 under the relevant provisions of the Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982 for the project and issued notice in ফরম-ফ under section 3 of the said Ordinance in August, 2011 giving a Schedule of land declared to be have been proposed for acquisition by the respondents for the purpose of the said project containing lands of Katasur and Sultanganj, Police Station-Mohammadpur, District-Dhaka. The acquisition process was never questioned or challenged from any quarter. The petitioner claims to be aggrieved for not being rehabilitated after the acquisition and for not being compensated. The learned Attorney General undertakes before us that the rehabilitation program will be implementated as early as possible and the petitioner will definitely be rehabilitated and duly compensated under due process of law within the shortest period of time.

Under the circumstances, we direct the respondents to rehabilitate the petitioner and properly compensate him as early as possible under due process of law whose land was acquired for the purpose of setting up a graveyard, which has already started functioning.

         With this direction, the Rule is disposed of.

          End.