(From previous issue)
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, having no other way, the petitioner sent a Notice Demanding Justice on 22-7-2012 requesting the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to release the awarded compensation in respect of the scheduled land in favour of the heirs of the said Md Akkas Ali. But the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 did not take any action in this regard.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the inaction of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 the petitioner has moved this Court and obtained the instant Rule Nisi.
7. The respondents did not enter appearance by filing affidavit-in-opposition controverting the statements made in the writ petition.
8. Mr Md Mokleshur Rahman, learned Deputy Attorney-General, however, made oral submissions in this Rule.
9. Mr Ahsanul Karim, Advocate appeared with Mr Khairul Alam Choudhury and Ms Farzana Khan on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Circle Officer vide Order dated 19-10-1997 ordered that the said land can be mutated in the name of Md Akkas Ali and Md Abdus Sobhan. Mr Ahsanul Karim then took us to Dhaka City Survey Record (Annexure Dl) published in the names of Md Akkas Ali and another in connection with the said land under Section 144(7) of the State Acquisition Tenancy Act, 1950 (the said Act). He submitted that under Section 144(7) of the said Act the Revenue Officer finally framed the record and caused the record finally published in the prescribed manner and the publication of such record has the conclusive evidence that the record has been duly prepared. Therefore, the record having been published in the names of Md Akkas Ali and another, such record provides us with the conclusive evidence of the aforementioned. He further submitted that under section 144A of the said Act, The Dhaka City Survey Record (Annexure Dl) has the presumption of its correctness. The said land was also mutated in the name of the petitioner and other heirs of Md Akkas Ali and Md Abdus Sobhan (Annexure E) wherein the Assistant Commissioner (Land) gave a declaration that the land in question is not a khas land. Mr Karim then submitted that the Deputy Commissioner Dhaka served a notice upon the petitioner and others under Section 7 of the Acquisition and Requisition of the Immovable Property Ordinance, 1882 (the said Ordinance) for compensation. Mr Ahsanul Karim referred to the report of Land Office (Annexure H) dated 12-4-2012 which evidenced that the land was never a khas land. Mr Ahsanul Karim lastly submitted that the Gazzette Notification published by the Government dated 12-4-2009 which also evidenced that the land in question;not a khas land and the respondents were under obligation to pay the compensation as notified by them in their notice under Section 7 of the said Ordinance.
10. Mr Md Mokleshur Rahman, learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing for the respondents contested the Rule without, however, filing any affidavit-in-opposition. He submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation out of the LA Proceeding but found it difficult to oppose the Rule.
11. We have considered the writ petition and Annexures contained therein, the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner and the submissions made by the advocates of both the parties. We considered the Annexure “B” of the writ petition, from which it appears vide order dated 19-10-1977 allowed the Mutation Case No. 1428 (Shoi) of 1977-78 in favour of the predecessors of the petitioner and that the Circle Office approved the land was mutated in the names of Md Akkas Ali and another after correction of the record. From Annexure ‘C’ it appears that the land was mutated in the name of the said persons. From Annexure ‘C1’ it appears that the Government received rent from the said Md. Akkas Ali and another. From Annexure ‘D’ it appears that the said land was mutated in the names of Md Akkas Ali and another. From Annexure ‘D1’ it appears that Dhaka City Survey Report was published in the names of Md Akkas Ali and another in connection with the said land in question under Section 144(7) of the said Act. The Land Assistant Officer, Gulshan land office by Memo dated 12-4-2012 (Annexure H) sent report to the office of Assistant Commissioner (Land) Culshan Circle, Dhaka stating that Government has no interest in the said land. The Office of Assistant Commissioner (Annexure I to the writ petition) vide report dated 12-4-2012 stated that from the report of Land Officer it appears that 1.23 acres of land in Dag No. 2465, Mouza-Vatara is khas land. It is a settled principle of law as ennunciated by the Hon’ble Appellate Division in the case of The Chairman, Board of Investment vs Bay Trawling Limited, 3 MIR (AD) 54 = 51 DLR (AD) 79 that any decision of one lawful Governmental authority is binding upon all other Governmental authorities.
12. Hence, we are of the view that Circle Officer being a Governmental Authority passed the order dated 19-10-1977 mutating the said land in favour of the predecessors of petitioner divesting any right, title or interest of Government in the said land, against which the Government never preferred any appeal and/ or took any step before any forum for setting aside the said order and, as such, the said decision dated 19-10-1977 of Circle Officer is binding upon all other Governmental Authorities and the Government itself. So the said report is absolutely malafide and colourable exercise of power because the Land Officer (Annexure H) stated that the said land is not a khas land. The Land Acquisition Officer to resolve the issue vide Memo dated 24-5-2012 sought opinion from the Government pleader (Annexure J to the writ petition) and the Government pleader by his opinion dated 5-6-2012 clearly opined that the Government has no interest in the land in question. Hence, we are of the view that the respondents without due process of law has not paid the awarded compensation to the petitioner in connection with the said land.
13. Considering all the facts and circumstances made hereinbefore, we find merit in the Rule. Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute. The respondents are directed to pay the awarded compensation to the petitioner in connection with the said land (46.94 decimals of land in Mouza-Vatara, SA Plot No. 2465, Mutation Khatian No. 11077, RS Khatian No. 17, Corresponding to Plot Nos. 6132, 6133 and 6134) wi1hin 1wo months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order.
There is no order as to costs.
(Concluded)
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, having no other way, the petitioner sent a Notice Demanding Justice on 22-7-2012 requesting the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to release the awarded compensation in respect of the scheduled land in favour of the heirs of the said Md Akkas Ali. But the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 did not take any action in this regard.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the inaction of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 the petitioner has moved this Court and obtained the instant Rule Nisi.
7. The respondents did not enter appearance by filing affidavit-in-opposition controverting the statements made in the writ petition.
8. Mr Md Mokleshur Rahman, learned Deputy Attorney-General, however, made oral submissions in this Rule.
9. Mr Ahsanul Karim, Advocate appeared with Mr Khairul Alam Choudhury and Ms Farzana Khan on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Circle Officer vide Order dated 19-10-1997 ordered that the said land can be mutated in the name of Md Akkas Ali and Md Abdus Sobhan. Mr Ahsanul Karim then took us to Dhaka City Survey Record (Annexure Dl) published in the names of Md Akkas Ali and another in connection with the said land under Section 144(7) of the State Acquisition Tenancy Act, 1950 (the said Act). He submitted that under Section 144(7) of the said Act the Revenue Officer finally framed the record and caused the record finally published in the prescribed manner and the publication of such record has the conclusive evidence that the record has been duly prepared. Therefore, the record having been published in the names of Md Akkas Ali and another, such record provides us with the conclusive evidence of the aforementioned. He further submitted that under section 144A of the said Act, The Dhaka City Survey Record (Annexure Dl) has the presumption of its correctness. The said land was also mutated in the name of the petitioner and other heirs of Md Akkas Ali and Md Abdus Sobhan (Annexure E) wherein the Assistant Commissioner (Land) gave a declaration that the land in question is not a khas land. Mr Karim then submitted that the Deputy Commissioner Dhaka served a notice upon the petitioner and others under Section 7 of the Acquisition and Requisition of the Immovable Property Ordinance, 1882 (the said Ordinance) for compensation. Mr Ahsanul Karim referred to the report of Land Office (Annexure H) dated 12-4-2012 which evidenced that the land was never a khas land. Mr Ahsanul Karim lastly submitted that the Gazzette Notification published by the Government dated 12-4-2009 which also evidenced that the land in question;not a khas land and the respondents were under obligation to pay the compensation as notified by them in their notice under Section 7 of the said Ordinance.
10. Mr Md Mokleshur Rahman, learned Deputy Attorney-General appearing for the respondents contested the Rule without, however, filing any affidavit-in-opposition. He submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation out of the LA Proceeding but found it difficult to oppose the Rule.
11. We have considered the writ petition and Annexures contained therein, the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner and the submissions made by the advocates of both the parties. We considered the Annexure “B” of the writ petition, from which it appears vide order dated 19-10-1977 allowed the Mutation Case No. 1428 (Shoi) of 1977-78 in favour of the predecessors of the petitioner and that the Circle Office approved the land was mutated in the names of Md Akkas Ali and another after correction of the record. From Annexure ‘C’ it appears that the land was mutated in the name of the said persons. From Annexure ‘C1’ it appears that the Government received rent from the said Md. Akkas Ali and another. From Annexure ‘D’ it appears that the said land was mutated in the names of Md Akkas Ali and another. From Annexure ‘D1’ it appears that Dhaka City Survey Report was published in the names of Md Akkas Ali and another in connection with the said land in question under Section 144(7) of the said Act. The Land Assistant Officer, Gulshan land office by Memo dated 12-4-2012 (Annexure H) sent report to the office of Assistant Commissioner (Land) Culshan Circle, Dhaka stating that Government has no interest in the said land. The Office of Assistant Commissioner (Annexure I to the writ petition) vide report dated 12-4-2012 stated that from the report of Land Officer it appears that 1.23 acres of land in Dag No. 2465, Mouza-Vatara is khas land. It is a settled principle of law as ennunciated by the Hon’ble Appellate Division in the case of The Chairman, Board of Investment vs Bay Trawling Limited, 3 MIR (AD) 54 = 51 DLR (AD) 79 that any decision of one lawful Governmental authority is binding upon all other Governmental authorities.
12. Hence, we are of the view that Circle Officer being a Governmental Authority passed the order dated 19-10-1977 mutating the said land in favour of the predecessors of petitioner divesting any right, title or interest of Government in the said land, against which the Government never preferred any appeal and/ or took any step before any forum for setting aside the said order and, as such, the said decision dated 19-10-1977 of Circle Officer is binding upon all other Governmental Authorities and the Government itself. So the said report is absolutely malafide and colourable exercise of power because the Land Officer (Annexure H) stated that the said land is not a khas land. The Land Acquisition Officer to resolve the issue vide Memo dated 24-5-2012 sought opinion from the Government pleader (Annexure J to the writ petition) and the Government pleader by his opinion dated 5-6-2012 clearly opined that the Government has no interest in the land in question. Hence, we are of the view that the respondents without due process of law has not paid the awarded compensation to the petitioner in connection with the said land.
13. Considering all the facts and circumstances made hereinbefore, we find merit in the Rule. Accordingly, the Rule is made absolute. The respondents are directed to pay the awarded compensation to the petitioner in connection with the said land (46.94 decimals of land in Mouza-Vatara, SA Plot No. 2465, Mutation Khatian No. 11077, RS Khatian No. 17, Corresponding to Plot Nos. 6132, 6133 and 6134) wi1hin 1wo months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order.
There is no order as to costs.
(Concluded)
