Affidavit in Opposition

  • View
    59

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Text of Affidavit in Opposition

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

WRIT PETITION NO. 7411 OF 2011

Engineer Sajib Ranajan Das ... ... PETITIONER. - V E R S U S Bangladesh and Others... ... RESPONDENTS.

Affidavit-in-Opposition on behalf of the Respondent No. 9, Md. Moshiur Reza I, Md. Moshiur Reza son of Hazi Md. Chan Miah, aged about 35 years, of 22 Surovi Notun Hassan Nagor, Sunamgonj, by faith Muslim, by Occupation Business, by Nationality Bangladeshi, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows :1. That I am the respondent No. 9 of the aforesaid writ

petition and in that capacity I am thoroughly conversant with

-:( 2 ):-

the facts and circumstances of the case and as such I am competent to swear this affidavit. 2. That a copy of the writ application whereupon the said

Rule Nisi have been issued having been served upon this respondent No.9 the deponent going through the same have understood the meaning of the contents thereof fully and this deponent has been advised to controvert only those statements which are relevant and necessary for the purpose of disposal of this Rule and those statements which are not specifically admitted hereinafter shall be deemed to have been denied by the respondent and the petitioner shall have to prove the same. 3. That the statements made in paragraph 1 and 2 of the writ

petition are matters of record. 4. That the statements made in paragraph No. 3 of the writ are partially true since all the respondents are not

petition

holding respective official position concerning issues related to the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources. Thus, the respondent no.9 stated that his identification was deliberately

-:( 3 ):-

misstated by the petitioner and hence denied. It is stated that respondent 9 is a private party and is the director of Balaka C.N.G. Conversion and Filling Station, Oaskhali, Sunamgonj. 5. That the statements made in paragraph 4, 5, 6 and 7 of

the writ petition are matters of record and as such it is strictly conferred upon the petitioner to prove the facts. 6. That the statements made in paragraph 8 is incomplete and as such the respondent no. 9 stated that the petitioner kept the paragraph 8 incomplete with undue motive and to abuse the process of the court. 7. That the statements made in paragraph 9,10, 11,12 and 13 of the writ petition are matters of record and as such it is strictly conferred upon the petitioner to prove the facts. 8.

-:( 4 ):-

That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 4 of the writ petition, it is stated that the original owner of the case property Abdul Khaleque Bain was non-Bengali and a citizen of Pakistan which was at war against the Republic of Bangladesh and he left former East Pakistan during the war of Liberation abandoning the property and his whereabouts were not known since 25th March 1971 and since then he was not in possession of the case property. The said Abdul Khaleque Bain was never vendor of the petitioner before 25th March, 1971, or could have been vendor after 25th March, 1971 the said property having been abandoned pursuant to President Order No. 16 of 1972. 6. That the statements made in paragraph 5 of the writ

petition are not true and hence denied. The so called agreement for sale dated 25-05-1971 of the case property between the petitioner and the original owner Abdul Khaleque Bain is

-:( 5 ):-

forged and creation of the petitioner to grab the government abandoned property fraudulently. At that time the counter was engaged in war with Pakistan. It is a blatant lie after lie that Abdul Khaleque Bain handed over possession to the petitioner. Possession of the said property was never handed over to the petitioner. 7. That the statements made in paragraph 6 of the writ

petition are not true and hence denied. The petitioner or his alleged vendor Abdul Khaleque Bain was not in possession of the case property since 25th March, 1971. It was under control and possession of the Ministry of Works, Government of Bangladesh. 8. As regards the statements made in paragraph 7 of the writ

petition it is stated that the case property was in possession and control of the Ministry of Public Works and Urban Development of the Government of Bangladesh as abandoned property through its allottee M/s. Sunshine Cable and Rubber Works, M/s. Ideal Motor Works and M/s. Suruchi Snacks. They deposited house rent as abandoned property by Chalan to the

-:( 6 ):-

Government account. The full sister of the petitioner M/s. Jahanara Begum was also one of the allottee of the Government in the case holding. The petitioner was neither an allottee of the government nor in possession of the case property. The petitioner might have used address of his sister office. The ANNEXURES C series does not alter the character of the property as abandoned property. 9. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 8

of the writ petition it is stated that the government invited sealed tender for sale of 13 abandoned property of Bangabandhu Avenue, Dilkusha and Motijheel Commercial Area including the case property 68, Motijheel Commercial area. It was advertised in the Daily News Paper like Ittefaque etc. on 02-01-1985 inviting tender from intending purchaser with closing date on 31-01-1985. It was advised to purchase the tender documents and schedule on payment of Tk. 50/- for each set of documents from some selected Sonali Bank, Dhaka on any working day on or before 30-01-1985. It was also advised to deposit 5% of the offered bid money as earnest money in any

-:( 7 ):-

schedule Bank in favour of Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Maintenance Division, Dhaka in the form of Pay Order or demand draft and to enclose the same with tender document. Accordingly respondent No. 2, purchased a tender document with schedule from Sonali Bank, Dilkusha, Dhaka on 22-01-1985. He deposited Tk. 5,00,000/- at Pubali Bank, Nazimuddin road Branch, Dhaka by Pay Order No. 1765510 dated 30-01-1985 as 5% offered value as of earnest money and participated in the tender by offering Tk. 84,00,000/- Lacs only. In all 5 candidates including Jahanara Begum full sister of the petitioner participated in the tender. The tender was opened on 31-01-1985 while in the comparative statement the said Jahanara Begum became lowest by offering Tk. 15,00,000/lacs only and the respondent No.2, offering Tk. 84,00,000/- lacs became highest and his bid was accepted by the Government on the recommendation of Tender Committee. But on getting the result of tender bid, the petitioner filed the Title Suit No. 206 of 1985 on 18-02-1985 in the 3rd Court of Subordinate Judge, Dhaka for specific performance of contract on forged document against the original owner of the case property Abdul Khaleque

-:( 8 ):-

Bain (2) The auction purchaser the respondent No. 2 (Syed Md. Altaf Hussain) (3) another participants in the tender Serajul Islam (4) Secretary Ministry of Public Works and Urban Development of the Government of Bangladesh and (5) Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy commissioner, Dhaka as defendants vide ANNEXURE D page 47 of the Writ Petition. The petitioner of Title Suit No. 206 of 1985 never appeared in the surface with the so called agreement for sale nor he claimed any right under the said contract to the government at any time before opening the tender for auction sale although his full sister Jahanara Begum participated in the tender. Thus, it is evident, that the title suit No. 206 of 1985 was filed by the petitioner by creating forged document of alleged Bainanama to prevent the Government from selling the abandoned property and to grab the same fraudulently. It out and out false statement that respondents attempted to take over possession of the property as abandoned property. The original tenants were occupying as allottees under respondent No. 1. The Title Suit No. 698 of 1985 filed in the 3rd Court of Dhaka was collusive and filed through impersonation. Abdul Khaleque

-:( 9 ):-

Bain being a Pakistani citizen and 2nd the property being a covered by Presidents Order No. 16 of 1972, the suit was filed through fraudulent collusive means and through impersonation. Photo copy of daily news paper The Ittefaque dated 02-01-1985 is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE - I. Photocopy of tender documents purchased by the respondent No. 2 is annexed hereto ANNEXURE - II. 10. That the statements made in paragraph 9 of the writ

petition are creation of fertile brain of the petitioner and the alleged agreement and deeds are forged, collusive and fraudulent and hence denied. The alleged sale deed dated 10-08-1985, 14-08-1985 and 17-08-1985 are collusive

fraudulent and void document the so called Vendor had no subsisting interest in the abandoned property covered by Presidents Order No. 16 of 1972. In this respect, it is stated that the Government by a notification through press published in the daily Ittefaque dated 02-01-1985 invited tender from intending candidates for sale of 13 abandoned houses of

-:( 10 ):-

Bangabandhu Avenue, Dilkusha and Motijheel Commercial Area including the suit holding property to the highest bidder and the respondent No.2, offered the highest price of Tk. 84,00,000/- Lacs. The tender of the respondent No. 2, was accepted by the tender committee consisting of high officials of different Ministry of the Government of Bangladesh. Thereafter a letter of acceptance of tender was issued by the Ministry of Works, Section V, Government of the peoples Republic of Bangladesh under memo No. Sec-V/IME-107/84/336 dated 28-05-19985 to the respondent No., 2, to make down payment of 15% of the offered price in favour of the Executive Engineer, PWD Maintenance Division. The down payment of 15% and the earnest money of 5% togethe