['Land Acquisition by Deputy Commissioner in CHT' Case]

Lambachiri Chakma v Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 3455 of 2005

Shanti Pada Chakma v Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 3456 of 2005

Ranjan Mala Chakma v Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 3457 of 2005

Natun Chandra Chakma v Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 3458 of 2005

Chitra Sen Chakma v Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 3459 of 2005

Tabida Chakma v Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 3460 of 2005

Suraranjan Chakma v Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 3461 of 2005

Shashi Mohan Chakma v Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 3462 of 2005

Jator Kumar Chakma v Bangladesh, Writ Petition No.  3463 of 2005

Shadhon Kumar Chakma v Bangladesh, Writ Petition No. 3464 of 2005

High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh

Facts:
BLAST provided legal aid to ten individuals residing in Dighinala Mouza in the Khagrachari District of the Chittagong Hill Tracts filed ten analogous writ petitions challenging Section 3 of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (Land Acquisition) Regulation, 1958 and notices issued under this section by the Deputy Commissioner for land acquisition.

Argument: The petitioner argued that Section 3 of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (Land Acquisition) Regulation, 1958, under which the impugned notice was issued, is violative of Articles 7 and 42 of the Constitution inasmuch as it vests arbitrary power in the Deputy Commissioner to acquire lands without issuance of any notice to the occupier for raising objection and without fixation and payment of compensation. It was further submitted that there is a bar on transfer and acquisition of land in CHT without permission from the respective Hill District Council under Section 64 of the Khagrachari Hill District Council Act, 1989 as amended by Act 10 of 1998 and the acquisition was also violative of the provisions of the Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982 and contrary to the spirit of the Peace Accord of 1997.

Order:
The High Court issued a Rule Nisi on 19.05.2005 in each writ upon the respondents to show cause why Section 3 of the Chittagong Hill Tracts (Land Acquisition) Regulation, 1958 should not be declared ultra vires to the Constitution and why the notice should not be declared to be made without any lawful authority. The operation of the notice was stayed till disposal of the Rule.

Laws Cited:
Constitution, Articles 7 and 42; Chittagong Hill Tracts Regulation, 1900; Chittagong Hill Tracts (Land Acquisition) Regulation, 1958; Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982

Status: Pending hearing

 

BLAST, YMCA Development Center, 1/1 Pioneer Road, Kakrail, Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh
BLAST would like to thank Sara Hossain, Jahangir Alam, Arafat Hosen Khan, Amanda Sen, Rokeya Chowdhury & Kazi Ataul-al Osman for content development
Copyright © 2010, BLAST | Web Design: Siraj / Machizo, Jahangir / BLAST