Appellate Division
The Project Director, MRT Line-1, Dhaka Mass Transport Company Limited v Nilufar Hossain alias Fina Nilufar Shawkat and others
Civil Appeal 35/2025 · Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside · Decided 1 July 2025
The respondent, holder of a RAJUK leasehold plot in Baridhara, challenged in Writ Petition No. 15376 of 2023 a notice dated 29.10.2023 under section 4(1) of the স্থাবর সম্পত্তি অধিগ্রহণ ও হুকুমদখল আইন, ২০১৭ (Act No. 21 of 2017) for acquiring land for an entry-exit point of the Natun Bazar station of MRT Line-1. She argued that it should have been served on her as owner rather than on the recorded tenant, and sought a direction to redesign the structures. The High Court Division made the Rule absolute, declaring the notice illegal and directing consideration of a slight adjustment. The Appellate Division held that section 4(1) provides for a general notice and does not require service on the owner, and that the respondent, who knew of the proposal, objected within time and was heard, could not complain of non-service. The redesign direction was premature. By later applying for a change of classification of the property she had waived her right to oppose the appeal, which was allowed.
- Whether a notice under section 4(1) of the Act of 2017 must be served on the owner of the property, and whether the writ petitioner could challenge it for want of such service.
- Whether the High Court Division could direct the authority to consider adjusting the station entry-exit design before the final decision on the Deputy Commissioner's findings under section 5(3).
- Whether the writ petitioner, having applied for a change of classification of the property, had waived her right to oppose the appeal.
- Under the Act of 2017 the acquisition process begins with publication of a notice under section 4(1) by the Deputy Commissioner; the provision does not require the notice to be served on the owner, and it is a general notice of the proposal to acquire.
- The Act gives an affected person several opportunities to be heard: at the preparation of the joint inventory under section 4(3)(kha), by objection under section 5(1), and by a claim for compensation under section 7(2) and (4), followed by enquiry under section 8(1).
- A writ petitioner who had made representations before the notice, filed an objection within 15 days of it and was heard through a representative could not challenge the notice on the ground that it was not served on her, and the High Court Division erred in overlooking these facts.
- The direction to consider a slight adjustment to the entry-exit, fire exit and ventilation duct point was premature, as it was given before the final decision on the Deputy Commissioner's findings under section 5(3).
- By applying on 28.02.2024 to the Deputy Commissioner for a change of classification of the property, the writ petitioner lost or waived her right to oppose the appeal.
Said provision does not entail any condition to serve the notice upon the owner of the property in question. Rather, it is a general notice containing the proposition of the authority concerned to acquire the respective property in public interest
