The Pourasava Ordinance, 1977
Section 3
In their writ petitions the petitioners claimed that a small portion of Sharisha and Karamza Mouza of Santhia Police Station, lying adjacent to the borders of Bera Paurashava and dependent on that Paurashava for its day to day affairs and being far away from Santhia Paurashava, wrote a letter on 15.06.1999 to the government for ex- tension of Bera Paurashava to include some plots of Karamza and Sharisha Mouza within Bera Paurashava. The government under a memo dated 08.08.1999 requested a report from the DC, Pabna who through the Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC) (Gen- eral) and Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO), Santhia enquired into the matter and submitted a report dated 04.10.1999, recommending the expan- sion of Bera Paurashava to include the plots of Karamza and Sharisha Mouza, as mentioned in the report, within Bera Paurashava. The recommendation by the DC, Pabna was based on an inquiry report compiled upon inquiries made by a three-member committee comprising the Engineer-in-Charge and Surveyor of the Bera Municipalty and the Surveyor of the Thana Land Office, Bera, who prepared sketch map on the basis of the recommendation of the DC, Pabna for inclusion of the areas mentioned within Bera Paurashava. By gazette notifica- tion dated 31.01.20000 the said area was declared an urban area. Subse- quently, on 24.05.2000 the government wrote to the DC, Pabna asking him to take opinion of the residents of that area about the inclusion of the said urban area within Bera Paurashava. On the same day the UNO, Santhia issued a general notice among the residents of Karamza and Sharisha Mouza inviting objection and suggestions, if any, re- garding inclusion of those areas within Bera Paurashava. A large number of people of the area filed a representation with a prayer for inclusion of the area within Bera Paurashava. The UNO wrote to the DC on 06.09.2000 that the proposed area being situated outside the Bera Upazila, taking a hearing of those people is beyond his territorial jurisdic- tion. The DC, Pabna then appointed the ADC (General), Pabna to inquire into the matter. The latter by a general noti- fication to the public invited sugges- tions or objections regarding the inclusion of the urban area within the Bera Paurashava and fixed 22.10.2000 for hearing the suggestions or objec- tions, if any. In due course the ADC (General), Pabna sent his inquiry report to the DC, Pabna, who forwarded the same to the Government concurring with the view of the ADC(General), Pabna that all the 118 persons present at the time of inquiry, apart from the Chairman of Bera Paurashava, objected to inclusion of the areas of Karamza and Sharisha Mouza within Bera Paurashava. In his report the ADC(Gen- eral), Pabna stated that the objectors were in favour of keeping the area within Santhia Paurashava. On the other hand the ADC(General), Pabna opined that for the general development and for increase of income of the Paurashava it is necessary to include the areas of Karamza and Sharisha Mouzas within Bera Paurashava. Bera Pourashava vs Government of Bangladesh (Muham- mad Imman Ali J) (Civil) 9 ADC 161
Section 3
In their writ petitions the petitioners claimed that a small portion portion of Sharisha and Karamza Mouza of Santhia Police Station, lying adjacent to the borders of Bera Paurashava and dependent on that Paurashava for its day to day affairs and being far away from Santhia Paurashava, wrote a letter on 15.06.1999 to the government for ex- tension of Bera Paurashava to include some plots of Karamza and Sharisha Mouza within Bera Paurashava. The government under a memo dated 08.08.1999 requested a report from the DC, Pabna who through the Additional Deputy Commissioner (ADC) (Gen- eral) and Upazila Nirbahi Officer (UNO), Santhia enquired into the matter and submitted a report dated 04.10.1999, recommending the expan- sion of Bera Paurashava to include the plots of Karamza and Sharisha Mouza, as mentioned in the report, within Bera Paurashava. The recommendation by the DC, Pabna was based on an inquiry report compiled upon inquiries made by a three-member committee comprising the Engineer-in-Charge and Surveyor of the Bera Municipalty and the Surveyor of the Thana Land Office, Bera, who prepared sketch map on the basis of the recommendation of the DC, Pabna for inclusion of the areas mentioned within Bera Paurashava. By gazette notifica- tion dated 31.01.20000 the said area was declared an urban area. Subse- quently, on 24.05.2000 the government wrote to the DC, Pabna asking him to take opinion of the residents of that area about the inclusion of the said urban area within Bera Paurashava. On the same day the UNO, Santhia issued a general notice among the residents of Karamza and Sharisha Mouza inviting objection and suggestions, if any, re- garding inclusion of those areas within Bera Paurashava. A large number of people of the area filed a representation with a prayer for inclusion of the area within Bera Paurashava. The UNO wrote to the DC on 06.09.2000 that the proposed area being situated outside the Bera Upazila, taking a hearing of those people is beyond his territorial jurisdic- tion. The DC, Pabna then appointed the ADC (General), Pabna to inquire into the matter. The latter by a general noti- fication to the public invited sugges- tions or objections regarding the inclusion of the urban area within the Bera Paurashava and fixed 22.10.2000 for hearing the suggestions or objec- tions, if any. In due course the ADC (General), Pabna sent his inquiry report to the DC, Pabna, who forwarded the same to the Government concurring with the view of the ADC(General), Pabna that all the 118 persons present at the time of inquiry, apart from the Chairman of Bera Paurashava, objected to inclusion of the areas of Karamza and Sharisha Mouza within Bera Paurashava. In his report the ADC(Gen- eral), Pabna stated that the objectors were in favour of keeping the area within Santhia Paurashava. On the other hand the ADC(General), Pabna opined that for the general development and for increase of income of the Paurashava it is necessary to include the areas of Karamza and Sharisha Mouzas within Bera Paurashava. Bera Pourashava vs Government of Bangladesh (Muham- mad Imman Ali J) (Civil) 9 ADC 161
The Government opposed the Rule by filing affidavit-in-opposition denying the claim of the writ petitioner. During hearing before the High Court Division the learned Attorney General submitted that in column with the heading "মন্তব্য" of Annexure-H, by mistake 70% of the population was shown as অকৃষিজীবী and the correct word will be কৃষিজীবি and fur- ther since the allegations made by the writ petitioner relate to disputed ques- tion of facts, the same can not be de- cided in writ jurisdiction as held in the case of Khalilur Rahman (Md) vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & others, 25 MLR(AD)80. Md. Habibur Rahman Islam vs. The Secretary (Md. Tafazzul Islam J) (Civil)6 ADC252
