Menu:

Illegal Land Grabbing and Corruption of District Government

 

Highlights

Introduction
About the Land/Schedule of the Suit-Land
My Claim
Physical Location of My Claim
Events Leading to this Situation and Those involved in the Illegal Land Grab
Advocate's Incompetence
Survey and Settlement Operation: Illegal Revision of Records-of-Rights
Current Occupiers
Local Government Corruption (Huts and Bazar Act)
Claim under Vested Property Legislation
Conclusion

 

Introduction

My name is Abu Bakkar and this website has been published to expose Government corruption. I have some land that has been forcefully and illegally taken over (possession) by land grabbers. The local or district government administration are aiding and colluding with these land grabbers by helping them in any way they can. I will prove all allegations with irrefutable evidence.

 

About the Land/Schedule of the Suit Land

For your clarification and understanding, I will summarise the events leading to this predicament. The land in question falls in the mouza of Birkolosh, JL no. 282 in the union of Durgapasha, district of Sunamganj. The concerned plot/dag numbers are 45, 71 and 318 (hereinafter referred to as “the suit land”), marked in green, in evidence A. The total area within each plot being 0.52 acre, 12.55 acre and 5.19 acre, respectively.

Table 1

 
 
Area per Plot in Acre
Descripiton
45
71
318
Total
Total Area of Plot
0.52
12.55
5.19
18.26
Government SA Katian no. 1
0.09
2.09
0.87
3.05
Hindu Zamindar DP Katian no. 3
0.46
10.46
4.32
15.24
Mutation Katian no. 144
0.30
8.70
0
9.00
My Claim with Dolil
0.36
9.54
0.90
10.80
My Claim under VP
0.08
1.80
0.76
2.64
My Total Claim
0.44
11.34
1.66
13.44

Note: Data extracted from Evidence B, C, D, F and Z

 

Under the last settlement operation, the suit land was recorded under the name of the government (SA katian no. 1 in evidence B) and the local Hindu zamindar of Kamarkhal (see DP katian no. 3 in evidence C). The Government share of the suit land includes 0.09 acre, 2.09 acre and 0.87, between plots 45, 71 and 318, respectively. This was barren land (‘potit’) until the Government funded and constructed road(s) on their portion of the suit land (Upazila road no. 2005 and village road [B] no. 5044 (see evidence G). The Hindu zamindar’s share of the suit land consist of 0.46 acre, 10.46 acre and 4.32 acre between plots 45, 71 and 318, respectively. Before the land grab, this was mostly fertile land, used for cultivation and now, a bazaar stands on a section of plot 71, while the remainder has been turned into barren land.

 

My Claim

My father Haji Ashkor Ali bought most of the suit land from the Hindu zamindar, see deeds of sale (X3) in evidence D. At the time of sale, the deed writers seemed to have entered the wrong plot number, in error, for one of the three plots. Within the 3 deeds, they wrote 527 instead of 318. This is not an uncommon phenomenon and has been petitioned in a recent lawsuit – evidence M. Relevant tax has also been paid (evidence E) and Mutation carried out (evidence F), in order to show change of legal ownership. Although our mutation application managed to transfer 9.0 acre of the suit land (0.30 acre and 8.70 acre between plots 45 and 71, respectively) in my father’s name, our claim is for the full amount, as sold by the Hindu zamindars and as stated in the deeds. Therefore, our claim is 0.36 acre, 9.54 acre and 0.90 acre, between plots 45, 71 and 318, respectively. This was also the area in our possession before the land grabbing took place.

 

Physical Location of my Claim

With regards to the physical location as to where my claim falls within the three plots, this is outlined on the deed of sale (evidence D), which states the boundaries and/or boundary marks of the suit land. Taking this into account, I have plotted the physical location/area of my claim for plot 71 in evidence G, which covers approximately 9.54 acres. This area/location was in our possession prior to the land grab. The Government has funded and constructed two mud roads on their share of the suit land, consisting of an Upazila road no. 2005 and village road [B] no. 5044 (see evidence G).

 

Events Leading to this Situation and Those Involved in the Illegal Land Grab

Because I live in the UK with my family, local villagers (from my village, Burumpur and other nearby villages such as, Amria, Holdarkandi, Birkolosh and Sridorpasha etc.) held meetings and formed a committee (hereinafter referred to as the “bazaar committee”). This bazaar committee consist of, but not limited to, local villagers, those that are well connected such as, the elites, rich land owners, expatriates (NRBs) and the rich and wealthy etc. The names of the initial land grabbers are available from evidence H, I & J. The bazaar committee took forceful possession of a section of plot 71 next to the government earthen road. They then built a bazaar out of mud/straw/tin-constructed shops, which they named Bangla Bazar. These shops were then sold/transferred via false/invalid deeds/documents by the bazaar committee to themselves and others like themselves.

During this period, my father held meetings with local people and the bazaar committee and objected to their plans. The objections were, that the land is crop bearing land, legally owned by us and that they should not go ahead with their plans because they do not have any legal rights to the land. It was also emphasized that, if they wanted to build a bazaar in our land, they should buy the land from us, which were all rejected by the bazaar committee. Fearing for his safety, my father returned to the UK and instructed my stepbrother, Dhon Miah, to ask the Ward Chairmen to intervene. This was followed by my step-brother reporting the incidents to the local police station that also yielded no results (see evidence H for copy of the report). At this point, my stepbrother was threatened by members of the Bazaar Committee. My father then wrote a letter directly to the Sunamganj Police Station (see evidence I) summarising the events that had taken place, including the main people involved. Without any positive outcome, my father came back to Bangladesh and filed civil proceedings against those involved (see evidence J). When my father returned to the UK, the lawyer, advocate Abdul Salik had died and therefore the lawsuit stopped/stood pending.

In the meantime, the Bazaar Committee, researching on how to legitimise their illegal possession, instructed their secretary, Abdul Goni, to file a land claim suit in the Sunamganj district court. Aware of these incidents and weaknesses, Monor Ahmed of Kamarkhal also filed a claim to the suit land in the Sunamganj district court. At this point my father and brother, Abul Bashar, came to Bangladesh and filed counterclaims against these two individuals (Abdul Goni and Monor Ahmed) and won the case (see evidence K). Abdul Goni had no legal claim to the suit land and as such could not substantiate his claim with any valid/legal documents. Monor Ahmed, however, had registered deed to part of the suit land. According to his deed, in evidence L, Monor Ahmed had bought part of the suit land in 1978 from the same people as my father, yet my father’s deeds were from 1975. It is clear from this that my father’s deeds are valid and therefore my claim to the suit land.

Having failed at the courts, Monor Ahmed filed mutation review application at the Sunamganj Land/Revenue Office (evidence M). The aim was to strikeout my father’s name and get his own name inserted on the record books. As before (mentioned above), this failed due to being invalid and against the law. Soon afterwards my brother took possession of some of the land, and with the aid of labourers, constructed pools of water (water bodies). In order to discuss the situation, the bazaar committee arranged a meeting for my father and brother to attend. At the meeting my father and brother were informed by the bazaar committee that the bazaar was built on government land at which point my brother argued that most of the suit land does indeed belong to us since we have all the relevant legal documents. My brother also asked as to why the bazaar committee was preventing us from accessing our land. Their reply was that the suit land did not belong to us. Whilst the meeting was taking place, some members of the bazaar committee retook possession of the suit land by destroying the water pools constructed by my brother. There were abuse and clear threats against my brother and father, during the meeting and afterwards, when my brother confronted them as to why they held a meeting with us and retook possession of the land by destroying the water pools. My father and brother realised then that the meeting was a distraction to move my brother away from the suit land in order for the bazaar committee to take back possession of it. Thereafter, in order to keep/maintain our claim to the suit land (alive) and reclaim our land, my father filed a lawsuit (‘bonton mamla’) against the (original) record holders of the suit land, the Hindu zamindar. The lawsuit has progressed very slowly as seen in evidence N. Upon appeal the judge decreed 6.71 acre in our favour.  

Advocate's Incompitence

Our lawyer has been difficult, making our lawsuit insignificant and not acting in our best interest. Ali Ahmod (our lawyer) dishonestly waived our claim to part of the suit land and included others as additional defendants to our lawsuit without our permission. He was able to do this, because we live in the UK and were unable to oversee the day-to-day running of the lawsuit. My father has passed away and we are having difficulties in managing and/or changing our lawyer. Therefore, I would like to emphasise that, this lawsuit is just for ‘show’ and was filed in order to preserve our claim for the suit land. We maintain our claim to the suit land as shown above, in table 1. Meanwhile the bazaar committee collaborated with a rich non-resident Bangladeshi, Kwaz Ali (also known as Ruab Ali), from my village (village: Burumpur, PO: Amria, district: Sunamganj). They persuaded Kwaz Ali to buy Monor Ahmed’s [invalid] claim to the suit land. By this time Monor Ahmed had died, therefore his son, Fokhor Uddin, transferred the [invalid] claim by registered deed. This deed can be seen in evidence O. The Bazaar Committee did this, even though they knew that Monor Ahmed (along with Abdul Goni), had lost his claim to the suit land in the lawsuit filed at the district court (evidence K) and the mutation appeal suit filed at the revenue office, evidence M. But more importantly, they did this to ensure Kwaz Ali, being a rich expatriate from the United Kingdom, would keep us busy and therefor enable them to carry out their survey and settlement operation without any interference from us. In 2002, Kwaz Ali submitted application at the Sunamganj district land office to amend the record books (photocopy of the petition filed by Kwaz Ali can be seen in evidence P). Kwaz Ali wanted my father’s name struck off from the record books and his own name inserted in it. Since it was legally invalid, and in addition to my step-brother, Dhon Miah’s counter petition (evidence Q), it was dismissed. Kwaz Ali then took possession of some of the suit land. My brother, Abul Bashar, was in Bangladesh at the time and therefore objected. Kwaz Ali, with the aid of local criminals/gangsters and their weapons, threatened and forced my brother to retreat. In return, my brother filed criminal proceedings against Kwaz Ali and his men, see evidence R.   

 

Survey and Settlement Operation: Illegal Revision of Records-of-Rights

In the meantime, The Directorate of Land Records and Surveys (DLRS) and/or Survey of Bangladesh (SOB) started to conduct survey and settlement operation around my village. Sala-uddin, the surveyor/amin responsible for the ‘maat zorif’, issued 'maat forsa' (evidence S) for most of our land in Birkolosh mouza except the suit land, which were recorded under the name of the Bazar Committee and the Government. During the ‘maat zorif’ of Birkolosh mouza, my brother, Abul Bashar (who went to Bangladesh to oversee the survey and settlement operation of the whole of our estate), asked him about the suit land. Sala-uddin requested evidence of our ownership, to which my brother submitted, three deeds, tax receipts and mutation forsa etc. (as mentioned above in evidence D, E and F respectively). Having inspected the documents, Sala-uddin enquired as to why other people (bazaar committee) were occupying our land. Sala-uddin was informed of the events that lead to the illegal land grabbing of the suit land. It was emphasised to Sala-uddin, that the Bazar Committee has no legal documents to the suit land and that the main reason for the land grabbing was because we live abroad. Furthermore, Sala-uddin was informed that there were ongoing court proceedings for the suit land for the past 15 years. Sala-uddin told my brother, that he will not issue a maat forsa for the suit land, that he could not do anything about the situation and that we should take the matter up in court. My brother persistently emphasised to Sala-uddin that, as a government official, he is duty-bound to be just and show impartiality. And that, since we have legal ownership rights (title) to the suit land, with legitimate documents, having paid relevant tax and records mutated to our name etc., the suit land should therefore be recorded under our name. Sala-uddin told my brother that there were too many people involved, including, elites, rich/powerful land owners, expatriates and the well-connected etc. and that he was threatened. Sala-uddin also told my brother that, if he was to record the suit land in our name, his life would be in danger. Because of my brother’s insistence, Sala-uddin told my brother to meet and discuss the situation at a later date. He stressed that, once the situation settles down, he would try and record the suit land under our name at the next meeting. Sala-uddin took BDT 40,000 from my brother and told him to meet him in a week’s time. After a few days, my brother was informed that Sala-uddin had left our village, in secret, having recorded the suit land under the name of the bazaar committee. My brother went to the district survey and settlement office in Jamtola, Sunamganj and protested. Officials, present at the time, informed my brother that, since the maat forsa had already been issued, we should file disputes and take up the whole issue at the next stage of the survey and settlement operation - the attestation. They explained that, at the attestation, we are to show our documents to the respective official and get the record-of-rights amended to our name. My brother filed disputes as instructed.

Attestation

At the time of the attestation, my brother sent his father-in-law, Abdul Lotif, to meet Ali Akkas. the attestation officer, at the Durgapasha union office. Ali Akkas only attested the other plots of our land in Birkolosh (see evidence T). When Abdul Lotif enquired about the disputed suit land, Ali Akkas informed him that a large sum of money (over BDT 5 laak) would have to be paid in order to amend the record-of-rights to our name. The amount requested by Ali Akkas was too much, given the fact that the suit land is legally owned by us. On this basis we did not pay and were therefore unsuccessful to correct/amend the records to our name. Without any positive results I wrote to relevant government departments for assistance and intervention, evidence V shows their replies.

Disputes with Survey and Settlement Operation: Current Occupiers

I got a friend to file ‘disputes’ or ‘objections’ on my behalf against the Bazaar Committee, evidence W show photocopies of receipt for these disputes. These are also the current occupiers of the suit land and therefore a list is provided in evidence W. At the time of hearing of the filed objections, I came to Bangladesh. The Objection Hearing Officer was Mizanur Rahman Buiya who requested to inspect documents to my claim to the suit land. I submitted for inspection, the original Hindu zamindar’s DP katian, my father’s deeds (X3), the mutation katian, tax receipt and the transcripts of the current and previous lawsuits etc. The Bazar Committee were not present at any time during my meetings with Mizanur Rahman Buiya even though I requested their presence. Mizanur Rahman Buiya enquired as to why others are occupying our land. I summarised the events, as mentioned above. Having inspected the documents, Mizanur Rahman Buiya gave me a number of responses, the main responses given are summarised below:

I asked why my legitimately owned (suit) land was not recorded under my name, Mizanur Rahman Buiya responded that the Bazar Committee showed him a document and claimed that we had lost a civil lawsuit against the Bazaar Committee. I informed Mizanur Rahman Buiya that we did not lose the lawsuit but rather it was pending because our lawyer, advocate Abdul Salik, had died, see evidence J. I also informed him that my father filed a new ‘bonton mamla’ lawsuit (evidence N) on the suit land.

I further asked why the suit land was recorded under the name of Kwaz Ali, even though, Monor Ahmed (from whose son Kwaz Ali bought the suit land), had lost the lawsuit claim to the suit land (evidence K). Mizanur Rahman Buiya gave me a vague response by quoting a few deed numbers to Kwaz Ali’s claim for the suit land and would not amend the records to our name. When I requested to inspect these deeds, Mizanur Rahman Buiya refused and said that he had seen them.

Addionally, Mizanur Rahman Buiya said that the government was claiming some of the suit land. I explained that the government funded and built a mud road on their part of the suit land, as mentioned above, consisting of an Upazila road no. 2005 and a village road [B], no. 5044 (see evidence G).

I also enquired as to what was the purpose of having legally establish land management procedures, such as, registration of deed of sale, mutation of records, tax payments, record-of-rights and maintenance of record-of-rights etc. including civil institutions, such as, the police, government and law and order. And the outcome of government employees not adhering to established rules and regulations which they swore to uphold as civil servants. Mizanur Rahman Buiya replied that we have no dokhol/possession of the suit land. I explained to him that we had possession of the suit land when it was bought by my father. But since we live abroad, the land grabbing Bazaar Committee took possession and have forcefully and illegally prevented us from reaching our land. And that we tried to retake possession but were unsuccessful (as mentioned above).

I also queried as to what was the purpose of having legal documents to a particular piece of land, when all that was required, was to have possession. Mizanur Rahman Buiya did not agree to a single point I raised, yet urged me to sign the dispute hearing forms, which he called giving ‘hajira’. I did not sign the forms at that point but made a further appointment. At the next appointment, I raised the issues and arguments again.

Seeing my firm resolve and persistency, Mizanur Rahman Buiya agreed to record the suit land in my name. We agreed on a price and a further date to conclude the deal. At the next appointed date, Mizanur Rahman Buiya [unilaterally/decided and] recorded only a fraction of my claim to the suit land – 2.40 acre, having already taken BDT 60,000 (see evidence X). After repeating my legal arguments/claim (as stated above), I suggested that if he cannot record my full claim to the suit land as stated in my deeds (three plots totalling 10.80 acre; 0.36 acre, 9.54 acre and 0.90 acre between plots 45, 71 and 318 respectively), he should record the amount stated in the mutation katian, which, as stated in evidence F, totals 9.0 acre between two plot numbers (0.30 acre and 8.70 acre between plots 45 and 71 respectively). Mizanur Rahman Buiyan disregarded my arguments and said that the matter had been concluded. Since I was due back to the UK, I was unable to take this further. When I came back to the UK, I got a friend to encourage Mizanur Rahman Buiya to record more area under my/family name. A total of 3.20 acre was recorded (an additional 0.80 acre was added, see evidence Y).

Subsequently, I returned to Bangladesh and had a meeting with Yusuf Ali (Zonal Settlement Officer) at Alompur, Sylhet, who instructed me to file appeals, which I did. I am now waiting for the outcome of the filed appeals. Should the appeals fail, I would invoke, ‘Rule 42: Special power of Revenue Officer Appointed with the Additional Designation of Settlement Office (The State Acquisition & Tenancy Act 1950, Section 144: Revision of Record-of-Rights)’. This allows for the cancellation of the survey and settlement operation and ensure the process is completed again, to reflect my claim to the suit land. With regards to my land and the way I have been dealt with by SOB/DLRS, I may have to invoke, ‘Rule 42A: Correction of Fraudulent Entry Before Final Publication of the Record-of-Rights’, of the said Act, which permit for the correction of record-of-rights as a result of fraud. My fundamental desire is for my legitimate claim to the suit land to be honoured and maintained and the entries corrected, as reflected by my legal documents.

Although the bazaar committee may have possession of the suit land, the act of land grabbing was carried out illegally (by taking the law into their own hand). This right of possession in itself is therefore invalid – otherwise anyone and everyone can do the same and we are left (result) with civil war, turning into animals where the strong devour the weak. Therefore, although the bazaar committee have bribed the DLRS/SOB into recording the suit land in their name, it is a legal custom that katian itself is not a document of title but rather a record of right of current possession (1981 BCR, 55 CWN 63, 35 CLJ 19, 56 CLJ 316). But I would like to point out that the possession occurred via an illegal act of land grabbing by the Bazar Committee, thus the right of possession has no legal basis. Furthermore, a well-established principle of law is that a registered kabala (my dolils) is evidence of title which will prevail over the records of rights (32 DLR 252). And the presumption of katian does not prevail over the recital kabala (49 CWN 59, 48 CWN 269). According to A. Noor v. Province of Bangladesh (1966) 18 DLR 666, it was held that the Revenue Authority has no power to declare a kabala void. And in any case, until the record-of-rights is finally published, no presumption of correctness arises (18 CWN 896 = 27 IC 229, 34 IC 857). And yet, although an entry in record of rights finally published shall be evidence of the matter referred to in such entry and it shall be presumed to be correct until it is proven to be incorrect (30 DLR (AD) 81, 33 DLR 126), my legal documents to the suit land ultimately prove my claim to be correct.

 

Local Government Corruption: Huts & Bazar Act

Various land acquisition legislations exist to accommodate the need of the government to purchase privately owned land, including paying for the land itself and any compensation for the loss of earnings that may arise as a result of this acquisition. The Bazar Committee established the bazaar without being sanctioned to by the Government. This was against the law according to, Section 2.1 of The Hats and Bazars (Establishment and Acquisition) Ordinance, 1959, ‘No person shall establish any hat or bazar in Bangladesh’. The Bazar Committee, using force to establish a bazaar on land that is not owned by them or without permission from the land owner, is in itself, illegal. Whether the Bazar Committee forfeited the bazaar to the Government or voluntarily transferred the right to manage and control the bazar, is open for debate. It could just be a matter of convenience for both, the Government in tax revenue and the Bazar Committee in maintaining their foothold/possession of the bazaar. Under the circumstances, both entities gained benefit from the suit land.

What is of significance, is the Government’s inaction with regards to, Section 2.3 of The Hats and Bazars (Establishment and Acquisition) Ordinance, 1959. It is clearly stated that any hat or bazaar, ‘established on any land by a person or persons other than the owner of the land without the consent of such owner, the land shall not be forfeited’, but rather the Deputy Commissioner (DC) is to step in to arbitrate in favour of the land owner. In contravention to Section 2.3 (i-iii) of the said Act, neither did the DC remove the hut and bazaar, take over its control on behalf of the government, having paid us market value of the land or issue license, permitting us to continue the hut and bazaar. Furthermore, any acquisition of a hut and bazaar by the Government is permitted by the law on payment of compensation. No such compensation was paid. The Government has not acquired the hut and bazaar or the land that fall within the hut and bazaar. Any plan or actions with regards to acquisition was not communicated/notified to me being a key holder of interest to the suit land nor was any notification or proclamation made at or near the vicinity of the suit land.

The DC, representing the Government, was clearly negligent and in breach of his duty with regards to the way he dealt with me and my rights to the suit land. I am of the opinion that the DC had played a part of the whole land grabbing and establishment of the bazaar. Under the circumstances, my preference is for the DC/Government to grant us license to operate the bazaar. Failing that, the bazaar should be removed. In either case compensation should be paid for preventing us from accessing our land and gaining any benefit. The bazaar committee and the DC/Government had ultimately gained the benefit from this situation.

 

Vested Property Act

The suit land consists of plot numbers 45, 71 and 318 with total area within each plot being 0.52 acre, 12.55 acre and 5.19 acre, respectively. My father, Haji Ashkor Ali, bought most of the suit land from the Hindu zamindar, see deed of sale (X3) in evidence D. At the time of sale, the deed writers seemed to have entered the wrong plot number, in error, for one of the three plots. Within the 3 deeds they wrote 527 instead of 318 (see Hindu zamindar’s DP katian in evidence C). This is not an uncommon phenomenon and has been petitioned in the current lawsuit – evidence M. Therefore, my claim for the suit land includes 0.36 acre, 9.54 acre and 0.90 acre between plots 45, 71 and 318 respectively. The Government share of the suit land includes 0.09 acre, 2.09 acre and 0.87 between plots 45, 71 and 318 respectively.

The Government or other parties may wish to claim part of the suit land under the various Vested Property legislations (hereinafter referred to as “VP”) but this can be disputed by the fact that Government records show that the land never fell under VP. For example, evidence C show copies of the Hindu zaminder’s DP katian no. 3, obtained at different dates; on 03.04.1994, on 08.05.1997 and again on 03.07.2006. In all three instances, no mention of the suit land falling under VP is indicated, as would typically be the case. Furthermore, the Hindu zamindar never disputed our claim to the suit land and never came against our claim to the suit land. In addition, the surviving members of the Hindu zamindar family are living in Gupaltilla, Sylhet, Bangladesh. I therefore challenge this claim made by the Government, in that, either the Government’s own records/processes/procedures are invalid or their VP claim is invalid. My father, being a Bangladeshi national, has bought the land from the record holders using the legal procedures laid down by the State and the freedom to do so as granted by the Constitution of Bangladesh and International Human Rights laws.

The Government has failed to provide any evidence that the Hindu zamindar or their family members were declared an enemy of the State. And even if the Government’s claim was to be valid under VP, there remains some ambiguity as to whether this claim is applicable when surviving family members claim it or when interests are passed on to family members before an individual is declared an enemy the State. Whether this is by gift/inheritance/trust or sheer word of mouth, which were accommodated by the law, it was a common practice to transfer land rights by word of mouth. This would, therefore, make me a successor-in-interest, since the remaining surviving members of the Hindu zamindars sold the land to my father. The law should/would favour me as a likely candidate to return the land under VP (and/or its subsequent amendments).

There is vagueness in the VP, being amended/repealed many times in order to return the land to the original/suitable/respective owners/claimers/successor etc. The VP legislations allow for the land falling under VP to be returned to their respective successors (successor-in-interest). It also allows for the land that does not fall under VP but is included under VP to be returned. With this in mind, and as a result of my father buying most of the suit land from the Hindu zamindars (surviving members remaining in Bangladesh), I believe I am the most likely candidate to be the successor-in-interest to the suit land. As such, on application number 110 of 2013 (see evidence Z) filed with the Additional Deputy Commissioner’s (ADC) office, I make claim to the land falling/included under VP under 'The Vested Properties Returns (Amendment) Act, 2011'.

 

Conclusion

The actions of the land grabbers (bazaar committee), the local/district government and DLRS/SOB have deprived me of my land and/or getting any benefit/gain from it. They did this, even though my father, paid for the suit land and transferred its rights, interest and title by registered deeds, mutated the records to his name and paid relevant tax etc. all of which, as stipulated by government legal procedures. I wonder what is the purpose of such procedures and legislation when the very people who are supposed to administer it, end up breaking it.

I think the local government and its relevant agencies have been biased towards us and did not fulfil their civic duties. It seems that the situation we are in profits everyone other than us. The land grabbers retain possession of the suit land and are preventing us from accessing or gaining any benefit from it. The local government and its agencies are aiding and colluding with the bazaar committee by collecting tax and allowing this to continue.

The parties involved have broken a number of laws/procedures/legal customs, including but not limited to, the Penal Code, Civil Code, The Hats and Bazars (Establishment and Acquisition) Ordinance, 1959, The Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, The Anticorruption Act 1957, the Constitution of Bangladesh and various human rights laws etc. In addition, the employees and office holders of the local government and its agencies, should further face disciplinary action under, The Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985 and The Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1979.

The bazaar was established illegally in contravention to, The Hats and Bazars (Establishment and Acquisition) Ordinance, 1959. In breach of the said Ordinance, the DC neither removed the bazaar, issued us license for operating it nor paid us any compensation for it. My preference is for the DC/Government to grant us license to operate the bazaar or remove the bazaar. In either case compensation should be paid to us for the loss of profit/revenue from the use of the suit land.

In conclusion, I plead for immediate action against the bazaar committee and the local/district Government and request that my claim to the suit land is upheld as evidenced by my legal documents. As such, my claim to the suit land is 0.36 acre, 9.54 acre and 0.90 acre between plots 45, 71 and 318, respectively, as demonstrated by my legal documents (evidence D). The location is mapped out in evidence G. I also make claim to any part of the suit land falling or being classed as VP under, The Vested Properties Returns (Amendment) Act, 2011. My claim, according to evidence Z, is therefore also 0.08 acre, 1.80 acre and 0.76 acre on plots 45, 71 and 318, respectively, under The Vested Properties Returns (Amendment) Act, 2011.