Hat and Bazar (Establishment and Acquisition) Ordinance, 1959 as amended in 1966
Declaration
that the order contained in memo dated 18.4.2000 passed by the Ministry of land
and the order contained in memo dated 15.5.2000 passed by the Commissioner,
Khulna Division, Khulna and order contained in memo dated 12.6.2000 passed by
the Assistant Commissioner (Land) are illegal, collusive, inoperative and not
binding upon the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction against the defendants
restraining them from taking over the possession of the Bazar and evicting the
plaintiffs and other businessmen and demolishing the Bazar....(2) Robiul Islam
and other vs. Secretary Ministry of Land (Md. Joynul Abedin J) (Civil) 5 ADC304
Hats and Bazars Ordinance, 1959.
Under the provisions of Hats and Bazars Ordinance, 1959. .(2)
The main question before the High Court Division is to determine whether the authorities concerned made proper inquiry to ascertain whether a Bazar was established by the owner of the suit land or it was established by any other persons without obtaining consent of the owner of the suit land and no evidence was called either from local peo- ple or shop keepers to ascertain who established the Bazar on the suit land and rather the letter, Ext.5A, proved that Rustom Ali on 03.08.1976, in black and white, requested Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka to evict unauthorized shopkeep- ers from the suit land and thus Ext.5A manifestly proves that the Bazar is question was established by some other persons on the suit land without obtain- ing consent of the original owners and thus the defendant petitioner No.1, without taking Ext.5A into considera- tion, most illegally passed the impugned order of forfeiture dated 23.10.1976 without serving notice upon the owners of the suit land which is a clear high handness and it has been proved that Rustom Ali did not establish the said Bazar on the suit land at the relevant time and further, a plain reading of Section 2(3) of the East Pakistan Hats and Bazars (Establishment and Acquisition) Amendment Act, 1966 (Act No.XII of 1967) shows that the suit land was not liable to be forfeited since the said Bazar was neither establishment by the owners themselves nor with their con- sent and moreover, no notice of forfeiture was served upon the owners of the land before passing the order of forfeiture." Government of Bangladesh vs. Mariam Begum (A.B.M. Khairul Haque J) (Civil) 7 ADC 906
