High Court Division · Special Original Jurisdiction
Abdul Baset Majumder (by his heirs) v Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK) and others
Writ Petition 11828/2016 · Rule discharged for want of locus standi · Decided 8 September 2026
The petitioners challenged RAJUK's allotment in 2006 of Plot No. 24, Road No. 11, Block D, Banani to respondent no. 7 as an alternative (Bikalpo) plot in place of a Gulshan plot allotted in 1995 that RAJUK could not hand over. The original petitioner lived on the adjoining plot owned by his wife. They argued that no rule or policy permitted alternative allotment, that the plot was an open space, that no notification or tender was issued, and that as neighbours they had a legitimate expectation of allotment. The plot had since been transferred twice with RAJUK's approval, finally to a company added as respondent no. 8. The High Court Division held that the petitioners had shown no ownership, contractual, financial or other legally cognisable interest in the plot, that the plot was not shown to be a designated open space, that status as a lawyer did not confer standing, and that their shifting and inconsistent pleas undermined the challenge. The Rule was discharged for want of locus standi.
- Whether the petitioners, as successors of a resident of the adjoining plot, had locus standi under article 102 to challenge RAJUK's alternative (Bikalpo) allotment of the plot.
- Whether a petitioner's status as an advocate conferred standing to challenge the allotment in the public interest.
- The mere ownership and residence of the petitioner's wife in the adjoining plot did not confer on him any vested or enforceable right in the subject land, and a belated objection without any prior legal or contractual foundation gave no independent locus standi.
- As the plot was not designated as an open space, public park, green belt or common utility area, its allotment did not, on the materials, contravene any zoning restriction or affect any public or community right so as to give an adjoining neighbour a ground of grievance.
- Status as an advocate, or a general professional duty to uphold the law, does not by itself confer locus standi to challenge an administrative decision, and the existence of an arguable legal issue does not dispense with the requirement of standing.
- A litigant cannot approbate and reprobate; claiming a personal right to the land as an adjacent owner while asserting that it is a public open space incapable of private allotment undermined the foundation of the challenge.
- In the absence of a legally enforceable right, a petitioner cannot invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction, and the Rule was discharged on that ground alone without entering into the merits.
In the absence of a legally enforceable right, the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. Such matters are to be determined before the appropriate forum in accordance with law.
