| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1964 SLD 521 = 1964 PLD 782 |
Petitions Nos. 368, 369 and 370 of 1963, decided on 15th July 1964.
Sattar and A. M. Sayem, JJ
MRS. CAZI PEARA AKHTAR BANU BEGUM-Petitioner
VERSUS
ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DACCA AND OTHERS- Respondents
Law:
Section:
SATTAR, J.-In each of these three applications under Article 98(2) of the Constitution, the petitioner, Mrs. Cazi Peara Akhtar Banu Begum, has obtained a Rule upon (1) Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dacca, (2) Land Acquisition Collector, Dacca and (3) Province of East Pakistan represented by the Secretary, Revenue ( Reqn. ) Department, Dacca to show cause why they should not be directed to regularise the illegalities by sending a fresh requisition notice under the Act which they are required by law to do or, in the alternative, restore possession of the properties taken by the order of requisition in Requisition Case No. 88/56-57 on the 16th of March 1957. The petitioner's case in each of these applications is that she is the owner of certain plots in Mauza Barabo, P. S. Tejgaon in the district of Dacca. The said properties were requisitioned in Requisition Case No. 88 of 1956-57 for the purpose of establish ment of a special residential Model School at Dhanmandi but neither any requisition order was made in the name of the petitioner nor any notice of requisition was served on her. She was however served with a notice on the 28th of March 1959, to produce documents when she came to know that the properties had been wrongly requisitioned on the 16th March 1957. The petitioner then prayed that the question of compensation be referred to arbitration. The Additional Subordinate Judge, Dacca was appointed Arbitrator and arbitration cases were started. The Arbitrator, however, by his orders dated the 5th July 1963 and 6th July 1963 held that he had no jurisdiction to make Award in these cases inasmuch as no order of requisition under section 3 of the East Bengal (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was passed in the name of the petitioner in the file concerned. The petitioner thereafter on the 29th July 1963, after obtaining certified copies of the orders of the Arbitrator duly represented to the respondents and required them to regularise by making fresh order of requisi tion and acquisition but nothing was done in that direction and hence these applications for directions either to regularise the matter by a…