Bench:

Mr. Justice Bhishmadev Chakrabortty

Civil Revision No. 4196 of 2012

Mayor, Dhaka City Corporation ...... petitioner

-Versus-

Abdul Mannan and others

..... opposite parties

Mr. Md. Shah Jahan with

Ms. Nilu Shamsunnahar Siddika, Advocates ...... for the petitioner

Mr. Md. Kamrul Alam, Advocate

...... for opposite party 1

Mr. Hasnat Quaiyum with

Ms. Abeda Gulrukh, Advocate

...... for opposite party 6

Judgment on 24.04.2024

At the instance of defendant 1 this Rule was issued calling upon the plaintiff-opposite party to show cause as to why the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Dhaka passed on 15.07.2012 in Title Appeal No.88 of 2011 allowing the appeal and thereby reversing the judgment and decree of the Senior Assistant Judge, Court No.3, Dhaka passed on 31.01.2011 in Title Suit No.123 of 2003 dismissing the suit should not be set aside and/or such other or further order or orders passed to this Court may seem fit and proper.

The plaint case, in brief, are that the plaintiff is a businessman and has been carrying on business in the New Market Complex since 1967. Previously he was allotted shop

No.583 in Hawkers Plaza Market of Dhaka City Corporation. The authority took decision to build a modern complex in that place. The Corporation promised that they would allot a shop to the plaintiff in the newly constructed shopping Complex. He then handed over possession of his previously allotted shop to the authority. But after construction of the Complex, the Corporation did not allot any shop to him and some others who were allottees of the previous Complex. The petitioner and others then invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court in Writ Petition No.20 of 1985. The Rule issued the aforesaid writ petition was heard analogously with other writ petitions wherein the defendant-Corporation submitted an undertaking to allot a shop to the plaintiff. He, thereafter, deposited Taka 20,000/- in the account of the defendant- Corporation on 14.04.1985 but it did not allot any shop to him. The plaintiff and others hawkers again filed Writ Petition No.32 of 1987 in this Court. There both the parties filed a solenama and the Corporation undertook to allot shops to the plaintiff and others but instead of doing so it was trying to allot those to third parties. Thereafter, the plaintiff along with others filed another writ petition bearing No.372 of 1989. In the aforesaid writ petition, the defendant also committed to give allotment of shop to the plaintiff. After disposal of the aforesaid writ petitions the plaintiff and others filed an application to the defendant-Corporation for

getting allotment. A meeting was held and decision taken therein to give allotment of shop No.G-11 to the plaintiff. The defendant verbally permitted the plaintiff to continue his business in the aforesaid shop. Since then the plaintiff has been continuing his business in the aforesaid shop. As the plaintiff was not finally allotted shop No.G-11 which he has been possessing, he sent a legal notice to the defendant but the defendant did not respond to it. The plaintiff has been in possession of the suit shop. He paid entire salami for it. He paid taxes, electricity bills and all other bills in his name showing his possession in shop No.G-11. Since the defendant is not allotting the aforesaid shop to him, he instituted the instant suit for declaration that he is entitled to get allotment of it.

Defendants 1-4 contested the suit by filing written statement denying the facts of the plaint. They further contended that the Hawkers Market Samity filed Writ Petition No.32 of 2007 against these defendants which was disposed of in terms of solenama. According to the terms of the solenama defendant was bound to allot 424 shops to the members of the Samity. But they could not allot 8 shops for shortage of constructed shop in the Complex and the plaintiff is one of them. Subsequently, another writ petition bearing Writ Petition No.372 of 1989 wa