CHITTAGONG DOCK SRAMIK PARICHALANA BOARD Vs. SHAMSUL HAQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by leave, has arisen out of the judgment and order dated 29-10-98 of the High Court Division passed in Writ Petition No. 2490 of 1990 making absolute the Rule obtained challenging the order dated 20-10-1990, Annexure-F to the writ petition, by which the Land Acquisition Officer, Chittagong, in terms of the Memo of the Ministry of Land dated 12-5-90, requested the writ petitioner/ respondent No.1 to deliver to him 0.09 acres of land of RS Plot No. 6161 and 0.019 acres of land of RS Plot No. 6161 and 0.019 acres of land of RS Plot No. 6156, both of Mouja Halishahar, Police Station Bandar, Chittagong within 7 days and also challenging acquisition of the above total 2.85 acres of land in LA Case No. 1 of 84-85.

(2.) The respondent No.1 filed the above writ petition stating that he, also with another person, purchased the above 0.19 acres of land of RS Plot No. 6156 by kabalas dated 10-1-1978, 4-12-1977 and 19-5-1977 and then constructed a shop house and godown therein at a cost of Taka 2 lac and he also purchased the above 0.09 acres of land of RS of Plot No. 6161 by kabala dated 10-1-1982 and constructed a building therein at a cost of Taka 15 lac; no notice of acquisition and requisition of the above plots was served upon him except notice dated 16-4-1985 under section 7(3) of the Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982 by which he, being treated as a person interested, was informed that compensation for structure amounting to Taka 5,95,221 had been awarded in his favour and he was asked to receive the same; thereafter he preferred an appeal to the Land Acquisition Officer on 2-10-1985 but by notice dated 19-2-1986 the Additional Deputy Commissioner (LA) informing him that his prayer has been rejected, directed him to vacate the premises; thereafter he sent an application to the Ministry of Land Administration for review of the said order but with no effect and thereafter the impugned order dated 20-9-1990 was issued. None opposed the Rule. This High Court Division, after hearing, made the Rule absolute holding that the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1 is still in possession of the above 2.85 acres of land as is apparent from the contents of the above order dated 20-9-90 and that no notice under section 3 of the Ordinance 1982 was issued upon the respondent No.1; the Land Acquisition Officer had no authority to issue notice dated 20-9-90; Annexure-B shows that no compensation for land as well as compensation for change of residence have been awarded; the order dated 20-9-90 is hit by provisions of section 11 of Ordinance 1982; 20 acres, out of 24.73 acres of land acquired, being still remaining unutilised by the requiring body, the appellant No.1, they do no longer require the above 2.85 acres of land for implementation of their project, otherwise they would have appeared and contested the Rule and that the order of acquisition of the above 0.09 acres of RS Plot No. 6161 and 0.19 acres of land appertaining to RS Plot No. 6156 acquired in LA Case No.1 of 1984-85 as well as also the issuance of the above order dated 20-9-90 are illegal.

(3.) Leave was granted on the submissions that the writ respondent/appellant No. 1, the requiring body in possession of the land in question having not been made a party in the present writ petition, the judgment and order passed therein suffers from error of law and further the High Court Division was also not justified in directing the writ respondent/appellant Nos.2-4 to release the land in question as the appellant No.1, the requiring body, after getting possession of the acquired land made construction therein spending substantial amount thereby leaving no scope for them to return of the land in question to the respondent No.1 and further notice under section 3 of the Ordinance No.11 of 1982 is not required to be served personally on the owners of the acquired land.