সতর্কীকরণ! বিডি কানুনে প্রকাশিত অধিকাংশ নজীর বিভিন্ন বই ও ওয়েবসাইট থেকে সংগ্রহ করা হয়েছে। এই সকল নজীর এর সঠিকতার বিষয়ে বিডি কানুন কোন নিশ্চয়তা প্রদান করে না। বিডি কানুনে প্রকাশিত নজীর এর উপর নির্ভর এর আগে সংশ্লিষ্ট নজীরটির রেফারেন্স মিলিয়ে নেওয়ার অনুরোধ করা হচ্ছে।
73 DLR 108
WRIT PETITION
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner
Mr Md Hamidur Rahman, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners at the very outset by referring to all the annexures submits that the petitioners have the title and possession over the case property and they never left the country. Therefore, the inclusion of the case property in 'Ka' list of the "f প্রত্যর্পণ আইন, ২001" is completely without any legal basis.
He further submits that on a perusal of the annexure-H, it is found that the owner of the property in question was Joy Durga Bewa and others, but on perusal of the documents annexed herewith, it is apparent that never the property was recorded in the name of Joy Durga Bewa or others at any point of time, rather, SA, RS and latest Mohanagar Khatian has been prepared in the name of the present petitioners and their vendor or predecessor Abdus Samad. Hence, inclusion of the property in the 'Ka' schedule is not in accordance with law.
Referring to the supplementary affidavit dated 12-11-2019, Mr Rahman submits that from the materials on record, it appears that Abdus Samad Ahmed sold out the said 52 decimals of land in favour of one Rairaman Mitra vide sale deed being No.1897, dated 17-1-1978 and subsequently the petitioners obtained 39 decimals of land out of the said 52 decimals by way of purchase. Therefore, it is evident that at the relevant time, the case land belonged to Abdus Samad Ahmed, who never left the then East Pakistan. On the other hand, the said Abdus Samad Ahmed, the SA and RS recorded owner of the case land, was a Muslim. In that view of the matter, there is no scope to include the case land as vested property, but the respondents have acted arbitrarily by including the land of the petitioners in the 'Ka' schedule of the vested property, which is liable to be declared to have been done without lawful authority.
He finally submits that after 1974, the inclusion of the petitioners property in the list of vested property is illegal and also violative of Article 42 of the Constitution of Peoples Republic of Bangladesh. The petitioners can come directly to the High Court Division for protection of their right to property guaranteed under Article 42 of the Constitution of Peoples Republic of Bangladesh. Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. To fortify his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions, which are as follows: Manabendra Chakrabarty vs Govern ment of Bangladesh, reported in 3 SCOB (2015) HCD 52; Government of Bangladesh represented by Ministry of Works and another vs Syed Chand Sultana, reported in 51 DLR (AD) 24; Saju Hosein vs Bangladesh, reported in 58 DLR (AD)177; Sharif Ashraf Uzzaman vs Bangladesh, reported in 2017 (2) LNJ (HCD) 166 70 DLR 857, and = the case of Md Abdul Hye vs Government of Bangladesh, reported in LG (HCD) 6 = 70 DLR 313.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent
Per Contra, Mr Amit Das Gupta, the learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka by filing an affidavit-in opposition submits that the Authority rightly and lawfully included the case property in the vested property list, published by Gazette notification dated 2-5-2012. He submits that the petitioners were fully aware about the Gazette notification and without going to the proper forum, being the Arpito Shampotti Tribunal for releasing their property, they filed the instant writ petition. They have no scope to prefer this writ petition as per the existing law of the land. As such, the instant writ petition is not maintainable, since they have alternative remedy.
He submits that the list of returnable property was prepared in order to return the property enlisted as vested property to the original owners, according to the Act of অর্পিত সম্পত্তি প্রত্যর্পণ আইন , 2003. Accordingly, on 2-5-2012, the Gazette was published following all the legal formalities.
He next submits that the mutation does not establish any right and title over any property, rather, mutation is normally allowed to realize Government Revenue. At the time of mutation of RS Khatian, the vested property Gazette notification was not published, as a result mutation Khatian was prepared in absence of the related vested property list. The property has been declared as vested property and leased out vide VP Case No.523 of 1979 and therefore, the purchase of the vested property by the petitioners is not proper as per law.
He finally submits that inclusion of the property in the 'Ka' schedule list of the vested property has been made following all the legal formalities, and, as such, the Rule is liable to be discharged.
আপনার কাঙ্খিত নজীরটি খুঁজে পাননি! এ বিষয়ে আরও নজীর পেতে নিচের বাটনে ক্লিক করুন।
