হাইকোর্ট পারমিশন লিখিত পরীক্ষা প্রস্তুতি. (Writ Question No-05)

Post No- 131

Writ-Question No-05 (Writ Part):

The premises of 55, Captan Bazar Road, Police Station-Sutrapur, Dhaka belonged to Mr. Abdul Baten. On his death, the property devolved on his wife and three sons who by a registered Kabala dated 04.01.1999 sold the premises to one Mr. Mokbul Ahmed. Though the property was correctly recorded in the S.A. and R.S. Khatians in the name of Mr. Abdul Baten who purchased it in 1950 from the Hindu owners by a registered Kabala, the property was recorded as vested property in the Register maintaining by the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar refused to accept Land Development Tax for the aforesaid premises from Mr. Mokbul Ahmed and the Assistant Commissioner (Land), Dhaka refused to mutate the name of Mr. Mokbul Ahmed in the Revenue Records. Prepare a writ petition to be filed on behalf of Mr. Mokbul Ahmed, son of late Amin Ahmed, 13, Haji Para, Police Station-Motijheel, Dhaka, (13 June 2008, 15 July 2011).

(প্রশ্নটি বাংলায় (রীট)ঃঃ বাড়ী নং-৫৫, কাপ্তান বাজার রোড, থানা-সূত্রাপুর, ঢাকা, উহার মালিক ছিলেন জনাব আব্দুল বাতেন। তাহার মৃত্যুর পর উক্ত সম্পত্তির মালিকানা তাহার বিধবা স্ত্রী এবং তিন পুত্রের উপর বর্তায় যাহারা ০৪.০১.১৯৯৯ইং তারিখে এক রেজিস্ট্রিকৃত সাফ-কবলা দলিল মূলে জনৈক মকবুল আহম্মদের নিকট তাহা বিক্রী করিয়া দেন। যদিও উক্ত সম্পত্তি জনাব আব্দুল বাতেনের নামে এস.এ এবং আর.এস খতিয়ানে শুদ্ধভাবে রেকর্ড হয়, যিনি উক্ত সম্পত্তি ১৯৫০ইং সালে হিন্দু মালিকদের নিকট হইতে রেজিস্ট্রিকৃত কবলা মূলে খরিদ করিয়াছিলেন, উক্ত সম্পত্তি তহশীল অফিসে সংরক্ষিত রেজিস্টারে অর্পিত সম্পত্তি হিসাবে রেকর্ড হয়। তহশীলদার জনাব মকবুল আহম্মদের নিকট হইতে উক্ত সম্পত্তি সম্পর্কে ভূমি উন্নয়ন কর, গ্রহণ করিতে অস্বীকার করেন এবং সহকারী কমিশনার (ভূমি) ঢাকা রাজস্ব নথিপত্রে জনাব মকবুল আহম্মদের নাম খারিজ করিতে অস্বীকার করেন।

মহামান্য হাইকোর্টে দাখিল করার জন্য জনাব মকবুল আহম্মদ, পিতা-মৃত আমীন আহম্মদ, ১৩নং হাজীপাড়া, থানা-মতিঝিল, ঢাকা এর পক্ষে একটি রীট পিটিশনের খসড়া প্রস্তুত করুন। (১৩ই জুন ২০০৮ইং, ১৫ই জুলাই ২০১১)।

Answer to the question No. 05(Writ)

DISTRICT: DHАКА.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION NO.         OF 2022

IN THE MATTER OF:

An application under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mokbul Ahmed, son of late Amin Ahmed, of 13 Haji para. Police Station- Motijheel, District-Dhaka.

-Petitioner.

-VERSUS-

  1. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka.
  2. Secretary, Ministry of Land, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka.
  3. Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka.
  4. Assistant Commissioner (Land), Police Station-Sutrapur, Dhaka.
  5. Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Sutrapur, District-Dhaka.

……..Respondents.

AND IN THE MATTER OF:

The impugned refusal dated 05.05.2020 by the Respondent No.4, the Assistant Commissioner of Land, Sutrapur to mutate the name of the petitioner in the Revenue records on the ground the property was recorded as vested property in the Register maintained by the Tahsildar.

AND

IN THE MATTER OF:

The impugned refusal dated 04.04.2020 by the Respondent No.5, the Tahsildar, Sutrapur to accept Land Development Tax for the aforesaid premises from the petitioner on the ground the property was recorded as vested property in the Register.

To

Mr. Justice Hasan Foez Siddique, the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Bangladesh and his Companion Justices of the said Hon’ble Court.

The humble petition of the petitioner above named most respectfully-

SHEWETH:

  1. That the petitioner is a law abiding, peace loving and permanent citizen of Bangladesh and addresses of the parties given in the cause title are correct for the purpose of serving of notices upon them.
  2. That this petition arises out of an order dated 05.05.2020 served by the Respondent No. 4 on the petitioner stating inter alia that the premises of 55 Captan Bazar Road, P.S. Sutrapur, Dhaka is a vested property and he refused to mutate the name of Mokbul Ahmed in the Revenue Records.
  3. That it is stated that the petitioner purchased the scheduled property by registered Sale Deed dated 04.01.1999 from its lawful owner, the wife and three sons of late Abdul Baten who purchased it in 1950 from the Hindu owners by a registered Kabala in whose names stand the S.A. Khatian and C.S. Khatian respectively.

Certified copy of the said registered Sale Deed, S.A Khatian and C.S. Khatian are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-“A, ‘B’ and ‘B-1” respectively.

4. That on 05.05.2020 the petitioner applied for mutation to the Assistant Commissioner of Land, Sutrapur in the name of the petitioner in the Revenue records and the Assistant Commissioner of Land refused the same on the ground the property was recorded as vested property in the Register maintained by the Tahsildar.

Photocopy of the said application and refusal dated 05.05.2020 by the respondent No. 4 are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-‘C’ & ‘C-1’.

5. That on 04.04.2020 the Tahsildar respondent No.5 refused to accept Land Development Tax for the aforesaid premises from the petitioner.

Photocopy of the said refusal dated 04.04.2020 by the respondent No. 5 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-D.

6. That it is humbly submitted that there is no materials to prove that the land is a vested property since the inception of the record; that the land was recorded in S.A and R.S khatian in accordance with law and the petitioner’s property is owned through a registered sale deed dated 04.01.1999.

7. That it is also submitted that the case property has been falsely, collusively and illegally enlisted as vested property with malafide intention to harass the petitioner and grab the valid property of the petitioner.

8. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order /impugned refusal dated 05.05.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (land), Dhaka refusing to mutate the name of the petitioner, the petitioner begs to move this application/writ petition before your Lordships on the following amongst other-

GROUNDS

I. For that the impugned order/refusal is illegal, inoperative and passed without any lawful authority inasmuch as the petitioner is the lawful owner and occupier of the case house.

II. For that the refusal dated 05.05.2020 by the respondent No.4 to mutate the Property in the name of the petitioner in the Revenue records is illegal, without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

III. For that the refusal dated 04.04.2020 by the respondent No.5 to accept Land Development Tax for the aforesaid premises from the petitioner which is illegal, without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

IV. For that there is no materials to prove the land is a vested property since the inception of the record, that the land was recorded in S.A and R.S. in accordance with law and the petitioner purchased the same through a registered sale deed dated 04.01.1999 and thus the refusal are illegal, without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

V. For that the case property has been illegally, collusively and arbitrarily enlisted as vested property with malafide intention.

VI. For that after registering the sale deed, the petitioner has been possessing solely and as such the impugned refusal are illegal, without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed that your Lordships would graciously be pleased to:

(a) Issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as why to the impunged order/refusal dated 05.05.2020 by the respondent No. 4. and the impugned order/refusal dated 04.04.2020 by the Respondent No.5, should not be declared illegal, without lawful authority and is of no legal effect;

(b) To make the rule absolute after hearing the parties and on perusal the cause shown, if any;

(c) Pass an order for all cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner,

(d) Stay all further operation of the impugned order of refusal till disposal of the Rule:

(e) And or pass such other or further order or orders as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.

AFFIDAVIT

  1. Mokbul Ahmed, son of late Amin Ahmed and Hasina Begum, of village/of 13 Hajipara, Police Station- Motijheel, District-Dhaka, aged about 45 years, by Faith-Muslim, by Profession-Business, by Nationality- Bangladeshi by birth, ID No. 555666777999 do hereby solemnly affirm and say as follows:-
  2. That I am petitioner and Tadbirkar of this writ petition and as such fully acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and as such I am competent to swear this affidavit.
  3. That the statements of facts made in this petition are true to my knowledge and matters of records which I verily

(Md. WXYWXYXYXY)

Advocate

Solemnly affirmed before me by the said deponent on this the 07th day of July, 2022 at 11 AM.

DEPONENT

The deponent is known to me and identified by me.

Md. XYXYXYXY

Advocate

Membership No.

Room No

COMMISSIONER OF AFFIDAVIT

SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION, DHAKA.

Related Posts

হাইকোর্ট পারমিশন লিখিত পরীক্ষা প্রস্তুতি. (Writ Question No-02)

Post No-128 Writ Question No-02 ‘X’ a teacher of Fazilpur High School in Feni, was suspended and then dismissed from service by the Managing Committee of the school on some…

হাইকোর্ট পারমিশন লিখিত পরীক্ষা প্রস্তুতি. (Writ Question No-01)

https://lawacademybd.com/2024/03/31/1317-2/#more-1317

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You Missed

Hello world!

  • By admin
  • April 9, 2024
  • 18 views

দেওয়ানী কার্যবিধি আইনের ৩৯ আদেশের ১/২নং রুলের বিধানমতে অস্থায়ী নিষেধাজ্ঞার প্রার্থনা। injunction.

  • By admin
  • April 1, 2024
  • 36 views

বিবিধ আপিল এর আর্জির নমুনা। Drafting।

  • By admin
  • April 1, 2024
  • 23 views

হাইকোর্ট পারমিশন লিখিত পরীক্ষা প্রস্তুতি. (Writ Question No-06)HCD ENROLMENT PREPARATION

  • By admin
  • April 1, 2024
  • 18 views

হাইকোর্ট পারমিশন লিখিত পরীক্ষা প্রস্তুতি. (Writ Question No-05)

  • By admin
  • April 1, 2024
  • 23 views

হাইকোর্ট পারমিশন লিখিত পরীক্ষা প্রস্তুতি. (Writ Question No-03)

  • By admin
  • March 31, 2024
  • 31 views