Rehabilitation of Acquired-Land Owners and RAJUK’s Duty to Allot Plots: A Case Comment on Most. Taslima Akter v. Government of Bangladesh and others, Writ Petition No. 3712 of 2014

Abstract

This decision of the High Court Division addresses a recurring problem in land acquisition and rehabilitation: whether an affected landowner may be denied allotment of a rehabilitation plot merely because part of the compensation award was issued after the original application date. The Court held that RAJUK acted unlawfully in rejecting the petitioner’s claim on that ground and directed allotment of a 3-katha plot within three months.  The judgment is significant for new judges, advocates, judicial service candidates, and legal academics because it clarifies the relationship among administrative fairness, legitimate treatment of affected persons, Article 27 and 31 concerns raised in the pleadings, Section 42 of the Town Improvement Act, and the public duty of rehabilitation in development projects.

1. Case Identification

Case: Most. Taslima Akter v. The Government of Bangladesh and others
Court: High Court Division, Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Bench: Mr. Justice Bhishmadev Chakrabortty and Mr. Justice Murad-A-Mowla Sohel
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 3712 of 2014
Date of Judgment: 02.03.2026

2. Why This Case Matters

The judgment is important because it emphasizes that an acquiring/development authority cannot rely on its own delay in payment of compensation or issuance of award certificate to defeat the rehabilitation claim of an affected person. It also reinforces that displaced persons should be rehabilitated first in a development project and that acquisition for residential purposes without accommodating affected persons cannot truly serve public interest.

3. Facts of the Case

The petitioner was owner and possessor of lands in Baunia and Deul mouzas under Savar Police Station, District Dhaka. The Government acquired her land for RAJUK through LA Case No. 06/2001-2002. The acquired land measured .0996 acres in Baunia mouza and .0960 acres in Deul mouza, totaling .1956 acres.

The petitioner received compensation award for the Baunia land on 07.02.2004 and for the Deul land on 07.03.2005. RAJUK published a notice in the Daily Ittefaq on 01.01.2004 inviting applications from affected persons for allotment of 3-katha and 5-katha plots in the 3rd phase of the extended project.

After depositing Tk. 75,000, the petitioner applied for a 3-katha plot. Her application bore No. 28349 and was filed on 30.03.2004. At the time of application, she had only the award relating to the Baunia land; the award for the Deul land had not yet been given. She later sought to add the award certificate for the Deul land to her original application.

When the list of successful allottees was published on 06.10.2006, her name did not appear. She made multiple representations in 2008, 2009, and 2013. She also earlier filed Writ Petition No. 6979 of 2013 seeking a direction for allotment, and the Court directed respondents 2 and 3 to dispose of her application within a specified time.  Thereafter, RAJUK communicated that there was no scope to consider applications where additional awards had been added later for more lands.

4. Procedural History

The present Rule was issued challenging the memo dated 07.01.2014 refusing to allot a plot to the petitioner as an affected person and also challenging the relevant clause contained in memo dated 05.07.2012.  The petitioner also sought a direction upon the respondents to allot her a 3-katha plot on the basis of application No. 28349.

RAJUK contested the Rule by affidavit-in-opposition, asserting that the petitioner originally applied with award for only .0996 acres, which was below the threshold, and that later-added land could not be counted because the number of such applications exceeded available plots. In a supplementary affidavit, RAJUK further stated that out of 2,199 plots reserved for affected persons, 2,104 had already been allotted, and the remaining 95 plots were to be allotted pursuant to a meeting dated 13.07.2023; it also claimed that the petitioner had filed a fresh application on 23.11.2023 which remained pending.

5. Issues Before the Court

The judgment raises the following core issues:

1.     Whether RAJUK lawfully rejected the petitioner’s application on the ground that she added a later-issued award certificate after her original application.

2.     Whether the petitioner could be deprived of allotment because part of the compensation award was issued after the application date due to the authority’s own delay.

3.     Whether the writ petition remained maintainable despite the petitioner’s later fresh application filed in 2023.

4.     Whether RAJUK, under its statutory and public obligations, was required to prioritize rehabilitation of displaced persons.

6. Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner’s Submissions

The petitioner argued that her total acquired land was .1956 acres, which satisfied the minimum land requirement once both awards were considered. She contended that she could not submit the Deul mouza award with the original application because that award was issued only on 07.03.2005, after the application was filed on 30.03.2004. She also argued that RAJUK accepted the later addition of the award certificate and that RAJUK’s own board had decided to allot 3-katha plots to affected persons whose acquired land measured at least .165 acres.

The petitioner relied on Rajdhani Unnayan Kartipaksha (RAJUK) vs. Mrs. Jahanara Begum and others, 57 DLR (AD) 80 = 25 BLD (AD) 149 = 12 BLT (AD) 222, Rabiul Husain vs. Government of the Bangladesh, 12 ALR (HCD) 50, and Firoza Khatun alias Firoza and others vs. Government of Bangladesh and others, 30 BLC 362.

B. RAJUK’s Submissions

RAJUK argued that the petitioner originally applied on the basis of only .0996 acres, which fell below the eligibility requirement, and that applications becoming qualified only through later-added awards could not be considered. It also submitted that there was scarcity of plots and that the petitioner’s fresh application in 2023 made the earlier cause of action obsolete.

RAJUK relied on Rajdhani Unnayan Kartipaksha and another vs. Dr. Tofail Hoque and another 27 BLC (AD) 91 for the proposition that where no legal and vested right has accrued, no mandamus should issue.

7. Findings of the Court

The Court found several facts to be admitted by RAJUK:

·       the petitioner’s lands in Baunia and Deul mouzas were acquired through the LA case;

·       compensation for .0996 acres was given on 07.02.2004 and compensation for .0960 acres was given on 07.03.2005;

·       the petitioner filed application No. 28349 on 30.03.2004 after depositing Tk. 75,000;

·       RAJUK did not deny that the petitioner later filed an application adding the award certificate for the Deul mouza land.

The Court also found that RAJUK’s Board Meetings dated 23.09.2010 and 26.09.2010 decided to allocate plots to those persons from whom .1650 acres or more nal land had been acquired. In the Court’s view, the later rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the ground of subsequent addition of award certificate was contrary to RAJUK’s earlier decision and to the advertisement conditions applicable to affected persons.

Most importantly, the Court held that the petitioner could not be deprived of a plot due to the respondents’ own fault in delayed payment of compensation and delayed issuance of award certificate.

8. Maintainability and the 2023 Fresh Application

The Court rejected RAJUK’s argument that the fresh application filed in 2023 extinguished the cause of action in the writ petition. It observed that the petitioner had first applied in 2004, had waited for years, had made several representations, and had already obtained a prior court direction in 2013, but RAJUK still rejected her claim on what the Court regarded as a flimsy ground.

The Court criticized RAJUK’s conduct as dilatory and stated that such tactics could not be allowed to continue.

9. Distinction from the Case Relied on by RAJUK

The Court held that Rajdhani Unnayan Kartipaksha and another vs. Dr. Tofail Hoque and another 27 BLC (AD) 91 did not apply to the present facts. According to the judgment, that case involved a newspaper publication showing allotment followed by cancellation on grounds of irregularity and illegality, and the writ there was purely in the nature of mandamus; by contrast, the present Rule was in a mixed form of certiorari and mandamus challenging an actual rejection order.

10. Statutory Principle: Section 42 of the Town Improvement Act

The Court expressly referred to Section 42 of the Town Improvement Act and stated that it provides for re-housing persons displaced by an improvement scheme. The Court further stated that RAJUK’s prime duty is to rehabilitate displaced people first and then accommodate others. This is one of the most important doctrinal features of the judgment.

11. Ratio Decidendi

The ratio of the case may be stated as follows:

Where land is acquired for a development project and the affected person’s total acquired land satisfies the authority’s eligibility threshold, the authority cannot lawfully reject the claim for rehabilitation allotment merely because part of the compensation award was issued after the original application date, especially where such delay is attributable to the authority itself.

A second principle also emerges:

In schemes involving acquisition for residential development, rehabilitation of displaced persons is a priority public duty, and administrative action inconsistent with that duty may be struck down.

12. Final Order

The Rule was made absolute. The Court declared the memo dated 07.01.2014 and the relevant clause of memo dated 05.07.2012 to have been made without lawful authority and to be of no legal effect. RAJUK was directed to allot a 3-katha plot to the petitioner as an affected person in accordance with law on the basis of her application dated 30.03.2004 bearing No. 28349 within three months from receipt of the judgment and order.

13. Lessons for Judges, Lawyers, and Judicial Service Candidates

A. For Judges

This case shows the importance of testing administrative decisions for internal inconsistency, arbitrariness, delay, and unfairness.

B. For Advocates

The case illustrates effective use of:

·       admitted facts;

·       earlier board decisions of the authority;

·       prior writ history and non-compliance with court directions;

·       statutory policy under Section 42 of the Town Improvement Act.

C. For BJS Examination Candidates

This is a strong authority on:

·       writ jurisdiction in mixed certiorari-mandamus form;

·       administrative arbitrariness;

·       rehabilitation of displaced persons in acquisition matters;

·       the legal effect of self-contradictory administrative decisions.

D. For Teachers and Students

The judgment is useful for classroom discussion on fairness in public administration, acquisition and rehabilitation, legitimate state conduct, and judicial control of statutory authorities.

14. Concluding Evaluation

This judgment stands as a notable reaffirmation that development authorities must act fairly, consistently, and in accordance with their rehabilitation obligations. A person whose land has been acquired cannot be disqualified because the authority itself delayed the award process. The Court’s intervention protects not only the petitioner’s claim, but also the broader rule-of-law principle that public bodies may not defeat substantive rights through procedural unfairness or administrative delay.