Public property and private gain

A shopping complex has already been built on the land by the Rajuk Co-operative Society. The subcommittee has asked the authorities concerned to submit all relevant documents to it so that a lawsuit can be instituted against those responsible for authorising the unlawful allocation.

The obstacle, however, is that, as of now, there are no uniform standards in place to govern the issue that the subcommittee would like to see settled.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The commendable concerns and efforts of the subcommittee highlight the need for a uniform set of standards which have to be followed for the allotment of any public plots in order to check corruption and nepotism. However, until a uniform set of standards is put in place by the courts, it is unclear what the result of the legal proceedings the subcommittee has initiated will be.

The unauthorised occupation or use of land that rightfully belongs to the government has long been a thorny issue. Only last week, the story of 700 acres of khas (government owned) land and vested property in Dhaka that had fallen into the hands of land-grabbers made the headlines.

The government has convened a secretarial committee to look into what steps need to be taken to recover the illegally occupied land and to punish the unlawful occupants. The committee has recommended that the relevant laws dealing with unlawful occupation or use of government land be updated and made more stringent to deal with what has developed into a test of the government's willingness and ability to stand up against private interests for the public good.

However, as we can see from the parliamentary subcommittee's findings mentioned in the first paragraph, the problem does not lie only with government land that is being occupied or used without any kind of lawful authority. There is also a problem with the rules and standards governing the allocation of public land.

Another example of this predicament is the government's recent drive to dredge the Buriganga to a depth of 12 feet from Sadarghat to Ashulia that has initiated the almost farcical spectacle of scores of individuals claiming to be the rightful owners and laying claim to the banks and foreshores of the river and even the river channel itself!

The genesis of the sorry state of affairs with respect to the ownership of the Buriganga, according to an investigative report, was that much of the land (including the river channel) whose ownership is currently being contested was originally "deacquisitioned" by officials in the Dhaka Deputy Commissioner's office and subsequently sold or granted to private individuals.

The current quandary the government finds itself in with respect to the ownership of the river and its banks is compounded by the fact that the properties in question have may changed hands over the course of years and that many of the current claimants or owners claim to have made their purchases in good faith.

It is thus clear that one of the principal problems which has led us to this unsatisfactory state of affairs with respect to the disbursement of public land is that there are no uniform rules, regulations and standards in place that govern such disbursements.

Now, in a democratic society, the government should not be free to select the recipients of benefits granted by it. The power of discretion of the government in the matter of the granting of benefits such as the allotment of public property must be confined and structured by rational and non-discriminatory standards.

Any lack of transparency in the process of the allotment of public land permits nepotism and arbitrariness. It is thus essential that the entire process should be transparent and fair, and that clear and uniform guidelines and rules exist to guard against the possibility of arbitrary or preferential treatment.

Fortunately, the possibility of a uniform set of standards is just around the corner. I am speaking of the case of Mirpur Mazar Co-operative Market Society Ltd v. Secretary of Works and others.

The petitioner in the case, the society, was the owner of a three-storied supermarket building in Mirpur on a piece of land measuring about three bighas. A piece of land measuring roughly 1000 square yards stood adjacent to the east of the society's market and had been described as a "car park" in the Master Plan prepared by the then DIT (now Rajuk).

The society had been using the land as a car park for the last 20-25 years, and had sought lease of the land several times, but were told that the land could not be allotted to them.

Subsequently, the land was allotted to a third party at a price which was 10 per cent of the then prevailing market price for similar land. The society claimed that the allotment had been unlawful. Hence the current case.

Perhaps coincidentally, the allotment was made to a company one of whose directors was the wife of an MP and two other directors of which apparently shared the same address as the MP.

The High Court declared the allotment to be null and void. The High Court also observed that, in view of Article 144 of the constitution, public property may generally be disposed of only by public auction or by inviting applications or tenders which would give all citizens equal opportunity and ensure fairness, accountability and transparency in the activities of the public authorities.

Article 144 gives the power of acquisition and disposal of government land to the government, but there are constitutional limits on the government 's powers to deal with public property and to grant rights on public property.

The legal principle laid down by the High Court judgment was that any allotment of public land made in violation of the provisions of Article 144 is not sustainable in law.

However, on appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the High Court's judgment.

A review petition has been filed in respect of the Appellate Division's judgment. The issues raised by the questionable allocation of public property to a company owned by the wife and relatives of an MP belonging to the ruling party is thus soon to be taken up once again by the Appellate Division when hearing the review petition.

Let us hope that a set of uniform standards regarding the allotment of public plots will emerge from this hearing. Only then can nepotism and corruption in relation to the allotment of public land be effectively combated and will the government be able to ensure that private parties are not enriched at the expense of the public good.

Abdur Rahman is a researcher in legal matters.