Land Acquisition Legislation in Bangladesh: An Analysis from Perspectives of the Rights of Affected Parties

1,427 Views

Abstract:

Land acquisition is a certain procedure conducted under existing land acquisition legislations in Bangladesh for various developmental projects. Although this procedure is undertaken for public purpose, in real scenario the existing laws do not always favor the affected parties, rather emphasize the eminent domain power of the State. This paper highlights on the shortcomings of Land Acquisition laws in Bangladesh in case of ensuring satisfactory remedies to the affected land owners while giving an overview of land acquisition laws, their evolution and Eminent Domain Concept. The alternative solutions are also proposed in the paper to resolve the addressed faulty procedure conducted under questionable procedural provisions of land acquisition legislation.

Keywords:

Land Acquisition, Eminent Domain, Public interest, Public purpose, Acquired property, Resettlement overlooked.

Introduction:

Bangladesh is reckoned as one of the most impenetrably populated countries in the world, which contains an exorbitant population exceeding 163 million people, in a small-scaled area of 148,560, square kilometers. The land is the most precious and extreme necessity for its citizens in order to reside in their respective motherland. In a land-impoverished country like Bangladesh, the acquisition of private lands is a matter of extreme suffering and misfortune for the landowners. In most cases, lands are acquired against the owners’ will. As a result, along with overpopulation and land scarcity, lack of legal protection for the sufferers put landowners under enormous pressure. A number of Land Acquisition legislations have been enacted in land acquisition history in Bangladesh. In 1824, the British government realized the urgency to legalize the forcible seizure of land. For this purpose, the first land acquisition law of the undivided province of India named, the Bengal Regulation Act, 1824 was enacted under the authorization of the British government. The land acquisition legislation history conquered a long journey till 2017 by adopting various necessary acts, principles amendments to form a well-versed codified law.

However, these laws of the past, have failed to respond to the grievances of the victims. The paper made an attempt to thoroughly scrutinize the fact that, all of this acquisition laws have been enacted with the core purpose to ensure the enforcement of the Government’s eminent domain power while disdaining the affected parties’ rights. The objective of the paper is to make attempts to identify the defects of the land acquisition legislation regarding the failure of safeguarding the private landowners and to provide some possible alternative solutions for the existing failures of acquisition legislation.

Land Acquisition and Evolution of Acquisition Laws:

Land acquisition is the result of the application of the eminent domain power of a state, which enables the government to evade private property rights for the sake of “public interest”. The acquisition of land by the state is a common practice that involves divergent opinions, conflicting viewpoints, and many complications, as an excessive exercise of power can lead to a violation of the property rights of its citizen. Lands can be acquired with the prior permission of the state, by Governmental, non-governmental, or quasi-governmental private agencies or organizations in order to accomplish developmental works for the interest of the public.[i]

According to the Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Act, 2017[ii],

“Acquisition means acquiring the ownership and possession of any immovable property for any requiring person or organization in exchange for compensation or rehabilitation or both.”

The Bangladesh government has been taking many steps to develop the infrastructure of this country. The land is the main component to inaugurate these development plans. However, on the contrary, Bangladesh is a densely inhabited country. Therefore, most of the acquired lands are the property of its revered citizens.

Professor Dr. Towhidul Islam stated that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with the Bengal Land Acquisition Manual, 1917 were primary and complete acquisition laws. Afterward, the (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948 came into force. In 1982, the Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982 was enacted.[iii] The Land Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property, 2017 replaced the 1982 ordinance in order to overcome its shortcomings, but unfortunately, it can be termed as a failure based on the view of many aspects. The act surely is repeating the previous flaws.

The majorly adopted laws which paved the evolution of land acquisition legislation are briefly stated below in a systematical manner:

The Bengal Regulation Act, 1824:

The procession of codified land acquisition legislation first took place in 1824, through Bengal Regulation Act. This Act was adopted by the British government in India for enforcing their eminent domain power and legalize land acquisition procedures. The sole purpose of this Act was to acquire lands by providing fair price for the various construction purpose and to ensure proper settlement of the problematical issue regarding the acquisition of land for salt manufacture.

The Act XLII of 1850:

The British government’s concoction for enacting this Act was to legalize the acquisition of land for railway construction. The Act declared that railway construction are for public purpose and acquired land for such construction work, shall be deemed to be used for the public good.[iv]

The Act XI of 1857:

The Act XI of 1857 was enacted by the British government which was applicable for the whole province of British India. The act repealed all the previous legislation and came in force with the objective to make attempt to ensure the betterment of the previous provisions for land acquisition. However the provisions resulted in unsatisfactory settlement, corruption, and other errors. [v]

The Act XXII of 1863:

The Act XXII of 1863 amended the Act VI of 1863 and abolished the previous complications of the law. This act was mainly enacted to ease the procedure of land acquisition by private companies. Unfortunately, this act also created the scope of nuisance and corruption for the arbitrators.

The Act X of 1870:

The Act X of 1870 ensured the compensation rate for the acquired land by considering the market value of such land. This act undertook new measures regarding resolving disputes by replacing arbitrators with civil courts[vi]. Though the act for the very first time, paved the way of providing proper compensation to the land owners, it contained numerous faults which resulted in fatal errors.

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894:

The Act of 1870 was repealed by the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The act was adopted by the then government in order to simplify the land acquisition procedure. The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 enabled the power of the government to acquire private land for the purpose of ensuring public interest[vii]. However, the apparent purpose of this law was to acquire land without providing enough opportunities to its previous owner to make any objection against such acquisition. This characteristic of the law often caused umbrage among the general public. It also failed to introduce any rehabilitation provision for the affected parties.

The Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982:

The promulgation of the Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982 repealed all the previously enacted laws regarding land acquisition. The law was adopted in order to mitigate the complications of the Land acquisition procedure. However, it failed to recognize the rights of the affected parties. The act did not contain any provision relating to rehabilitation of the evicted land owners, public purposes were not explicitly mentioned, various significant issues were overlooked by the said act which created tensions among affected parties.

The Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Act, 2017:

In 2017, a new law came into force replacing the Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982. Though this act was enacted with the purpose to overcome previous faulty measures, unfortunately, the newly adopted law is not providing enough protection to the rights of the affected parties. It is also infected with the previous flaws as found in the mentioned ordinance.

Overview of Land Acquisition Laws in Chronologic Manner:

From 1824 to 2017 various laws have been enacted for land acquisition purpose. These regulations, acts, by laws, rules made significant changes in land acquisition procedure respecting the demand of modern timeframe[viii]. A list of enacted land acquisition laws are shown below in a chronological manner (from the year of 1824- 2018) in order to overview the evolution of land acquisition legislation in Bangladesh:

The Bengal Regulation Act, 1824
The Act XLII of 1850
The Act XI of 1857
The Act XXII of 1863
The Act X of 1870
The Land Acquisition Act of 1894
The Executive Instruction of Bengal Government, 1917
The Executive Instruction of 1947
The East Bengal Emergency Requisition of Property Ordinance, promulgated on July 14, 1947, for a short period;
The (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948
The Cantonments (Requisitioning of Immovable Property) Ordinance, 1948;
The Acquisition of Waste Land Act, 1950
The Civil Defense Act, 1952
The Town Improvement Act, 1953;
The Chittagong Hill Tracts (Land Acquisition) Regulation, 1958;
The Rehabilitation Act, 1956;
The Hats and Bazaars (Establishment and Acquisition) Ordinance, 1959;
The Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982
The Requisition of Movable Property Ordinance, 1987;
The Acquisition of Property on Emergency Basis Act 1989 (Act IX of 1989) promulgated for a temporary period.
The Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Act, 1994;
The Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge Project (Land Acquisition) Act, 1995;
The Padma Multipurpose Bridge Project (Land Acquisition) Act 2009 (Act No. 31 of 2009).
The Dhaka Elivated Expressway Project (Land Acquisition Act,2011 (Act No. 11 of 2011)
The Payra Bandar Project (Land Acquisition ) Act, 2016 (Act No. 06 of 2016)
The Land Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Act, 2017
The Chittagong Development Authority Act, 2018 ( Act No. 31 of 2018)
The Khulna Development Authority Act, 2018 (Act No. 32 of 2018)

At the present time, the Land Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Act, 2017 is the supreme legislation which is followed by the authority for acquiring land.

Concept of Eminent Domain Power:

Eminent domain is the supreme potency of a State to accumulate individuals’ property for the public purpose within its territory.[ix] The governments of most of the developed countries placed a vital limitation on the unparalleled power of Eminent Domain by imposing a condition in their legislative enactments that, private properties shall not be obtained for public purpose without paying fair compensation which was first recognized in the French Declaration in 1789 and later during the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States in 1791.[x]

The doctrine of Eminent Domain has been recognized in Article: 42(2) of the Bangladesh Constitution. It has been stated that,

“A law made under clause (1) of this article, shall provide for the acquisition, nationalization or requisition with compensation and shall fix the amount of compensation or specify the principles on which, and the manner in which, the compensation is to be accessed and paid; but no such law shall be called in question in any court on the ground that any provision of the law in respect of such compensation is not adequate.”

The constitution also states in Article: 47 that,

“No law providing for any of the following matters shall be deemed to be void on the ground that it is inconsistent with, or takes away or abridges, any of the rights, guaranteed by this part-

a) the compulsory acquisition, nationalization or requisition of any property or the control of management thereof whether temporarily or permanently.”

This article is the saving clause for certain laws, which ensures that the state has the utmost power to acquire property in any circumstances in temporary or permanent manner.

In a landmark case, “MA Salam vs. Bangladesh”[xi] it was ascertained that Article 42(2) of the constitution demonstrates for abrogation of the property right solely by manner of obligatory acquisition or nationalization underneath the authority of the law and no question can be drawn upon such act of property acquisition.[xii]

The elements of Eminent Domain can easily be distinguished from the above-mentioned article. They are:

Private Property: The property shall be private in nature.
Must be taken (physically): ‘Taking’, includes not only acquisition of a property but also government action, including zoning or development plans which impacts the land in some way that the use of the property may change or result in a decrease or increase in the value of the property.
Public Purpose: The eminent domain power shall be enforced only for the public benefit. No personal gain shall be considered as a reason for acquisition.
Just Compensation: Property shall be acquired from the public after ensuring them a just and proper compensation for their property.

All these elements must be present during an action enforcing by Eminent Domain Power.

The Existing Problems Lying within the Applicable Acquisition Laws in Bangladesh:

Current land acquisition legislation in Bangladesh are not conducive to citizens seeking adequate assistance. It is an incontrovertible drawback considering that a lot of those unfortunate individuals lose their roots, their only place of residence. It can be mentioned after witnessing several incidents that, the sole purpose of procurement legislation in Bangladesh is to ensure that the government exercises Eminent Domain power while neglecting the rights of the parties concerned. The problems found in these laws are discussed below:

Public Interests not explicitly mentioned:

Public purpose, which is one of the most crucial component of Eminent domain power, has not been properly defined in the legislation. Therefore, there lies a tendency to manipulate the flexibility in order to acquire the land for benefits which might be for personal benefit rather than public.

According to Section: 4(1) of the “Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Act, 2017”:

“Whenever it appears to the Deputy Commissioner that any property in any locality is needed or is likely needed for any public purpose or in the public interest, he shall cause a notice to be published at convenient places on or near the property in the prescribed form …..”

Moreover, it is stated in Section: 5 of the “Acquisition of the Waste Land Act, 1950″,

“When the Government is satisfied, after considering the report, if any, made under sub-section (2) of section (4), that the land is needed for a public purpose, a declaration shall be made to that effect under the signature of a Secretary to the Government or of some officers duly authorized to certify its orders. The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose and after making such declaration, the Government may acquire the land in the manner hereinafter appearing.”’[xiii]

The above-mentioned section clearly mentioned the word ‘public purpose’, but does not mention that what issues will be deemed as public purpose. Therefore, this section became so vague and flexible that in particular cases, there prevails a doubt whether or not the purpose of acquisition is verily public purpose. It is justly mentioned within the case, “Arnold Roderick v. State of Maharashtra”:[xiv]

“Mere state policy or policy of the party in power is not the same thing as Public Purpose”[xv]

From the case “Berman vs Parker (1954)”[xvi] it was observed that,

The plaintiff possessed a department store that was not itself blighted but was scheduled to be acquired by the state in order clear the whole blighted area. There was an argument on the plaintiff’s side that, the project managed by a private agency to redevelop the area structure, only with the intention to make the community more attractive, cannot acquire the property.[xvii]

In another case, “Lila Ram v. Union of India”[xviii]

The Orissa High Court declared in this particular case that, when any property is acquired solely for industrial concern and for its own gain, there is no public purpose. Although, goods produced by them may be used for the vast public.

There is clearly a confusion prevailing on the side of the plaintiff on the context of public purpose. Though the case set a landmark decision on eminent domain, still the public purpose issue arose argument. None of the laws provided a proper answer behind such an urgent issue, which is a matter of great concern.

Acquired Property shall never be Given Back:

Although the law emphasizes the eminent domain power of the Government, while acquiring property, but there is no provision for returning the property to its previous owner, though the purpose of such acquisition might have been exhausted.

In the case of “Abul Basar vs. Bangladesh and others”, it is stated that, in certain circumstances where a property is acquired and subsequently released, it is not obligatory for the government to redirect the property to be returned to its previous owner.[xix]

We can witness an unfortunate incident in the landmark case “Kelo vs City of New London (2005)”:[xx]

Fact:

A private non-profit organization named, New London Development Corporation established a town development project, in New London. The New London council approved the NLDC to enforce eminent domain power to evacuate those who refused to sell out their property, in 2000. The homeowners who were compelled to sell their lands, were the victims of unwanted vexation, late night disturbing phone calls, dumping of waste on their property, and lockup out tenants throughout cold winter weather. Susetto Kelo, the owner of the well-known ‘Pink House’, was among the seven people and families, who were the owner of fifteen residential properties, disavowed to sell, despite the pressure.

Trial:

In the year of 2002, the occurrence visited trial. A trial court of Connecticut, nullified the reprehension of eleven of fifteen properties as NLDC failed to have a transparent enough setup to prove what their intention was, behind the acquisition. Both parties applied for appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court which gave the decision to uphold all fifteen takings of property. The majority dominated that any public profit counts as a “public use” under the federal constitution of the state.

Present Situation:

The NLDC’s scheme of development set up resulted in unsuccessful attempts, as did a variety of later efforts. Richard Palmer who was among the state Supreme Court justices who voted with the majority, sought apology from Susette Kelo, because of the previous decision. Currently, the condemned land still is vacant.

Though the acquisition project failed, no legal steps were taken to transfer the properties back to the previous owners.

No Restrictions on Land Acquisition Quantity for Development Projects:

The Elenga-Hatikamrul-Rangpur highway project, was a four-lane project which, according to the officials, the Road and Highways Department have to acquire 491.5 acres of land to widen only 190.4 kilometers of a highway, which is rather shocking.[xxi] None of the sufferers will receive any relief against such unnecessary acquisition, because the laws are silent.

Figure: Arable Land in Bangladesh

From the graph, it can be witnessed that within 1970 to 2015, arable land per person decreased in an unpleasant rate.[xxii] If redundantly, a huge quantity of land acquisition take place, the general people will face complications beyond description.

Resettlement Procedure Overlooked:

Bangladesh does not consist enough land as compared to its grandiose population. In the era of 1960 to 1970, several development projects were initiated without implementation of relocation plans. One of the most well-known project, the Kaptai Hydroelectric Dam, was completed in 1961. For this project, 54,000 acres of land were acquired in and approximately 100,000 indigenous tribesmen were displaced but, did not receive any resettlement facilities as the laws were silent about it.[xxiii]Therefore, acquisition of land results in distress for the private property owners most of the time. According to the survey conducted by Worldometer the current
population rate from (1970-2020) are shown below[xxiv]:

Figure: Population Growth in Bangladesh.

From the graph it can be ascertained that how abnormally the population growth augmented in the (1970-2020) periods. But the quantity of land that the country possessed is still the same. It is a matter of concern that, this small amount of lands that citizens own, are now acquired by the state, yet no attempts have been taken to relocate these sufferers by the legislation. There only lies a deep sigh of sorrows of the landowners when they are forced to leave their place of inhabitant without ensuring them a permanent roof over their head.

Inadequate Time for Filing Objection:

It was declared in section: 5(3) of the Jamuna Multipurpose Bridge Project (Land Acquisition) Act,1995:

“Every person affected by the rejection of his (Zilla Instructor) demand under sub-section (2) may, within seven days from the date on which the order of rejection has been passed, submit an appeal against such rejection to the Commissioner (concerned with) demands for compensation.”[xxv]

According to the Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Act, 2017:

“Any person concerned may file an objection against the acquisition proceeding to the Deputy Commissioner within 15 working days”.[xxvi]

In the legislation, the time limitation set for the aggrieved person for filing objection is extremely limited. As many of the sufferers are poor and illiterate, there lies an inclination that they will miss the opportunity to file for relief within the specified time due to their ignorance.

No Relief against Harassment towards Landowners:

According to the Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property ACT, 2017:

“Whenever it appears to the Deputy Commissioner that any property in any locality is needed, or is likely to be needed for any public purpose or in the public interest, he shall cause a notice to be published at convenient places on or near the property in the prescribed form and manner stating that the property is proposed to be acquired.”[xxvii]

It has also been stated in the Act that,

“Any person who contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets or attempts to abet a contravention of any order made under this Act or who wilfully obstructs any person in doing any of the acts authorized or permitted under this Act or any rule made thereunder shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand Taka, or with both”.[xxviii]

These provisions ensures the utmost power of the government to acquire lands, even set penalty to punish the persons who does not comply with the law. However, it is often witnessed that landowners are being vexed by the authority in order to compel them to depart from their property. As no penalty provisions are enacted to protect the landowners from these coercion, they may eventually convert to severe torture.

Landowners May Not Receive Adequate Compensation:

According to the Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Act, 2017,

“In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded for any property to be acquired under this Part, the Deputy Commissioner shall take into consideration:

(a) the market value of the property at the date of publication of the notice under section: 4…”[xxix]

Market value prescribes to be the ascertained amount in lieu of which an asset or liability should exchange on the pre-determined date regarding a transaction taking place between a consenting buyer and seller.[xxx]

The variability of the criteria to determine land price are massive. So, market value may vary on several conditions. However, there are no sufficient directions concerning determination of the market value, where the private owner’s sole interest lies. There is a possibility that the proper market value might not be determined and as a result, the private property owners will be deprived of getting apposite remedy.

Proposed Alternative Solutions:

All these reasons indicate towards lack of citizen-friendly provisions in Land Acquisition legislation. The legislation should not focus only on enforcing Eminent Domain Power by the state, but conjointly guarantee proper relief for aggrieved persons.

Resettlement provision inclusion:

Resettlement provisions must be included in order to relocate the affected parties. It is a crying necessity for landless people to annex proper surety that they will not be homeless and the government shall adopt adjuvant measures to rehabilitate the displaced owners.

Procedural laws must be introduced solely for the reason to relocate the affected parties based on certain circumstances. It shall be prudent to appoint government officers to form a committee in order to ensure proper supervision of rehabilitation procedure.

Inclusion of the explicit description of Public Purpose:

Proper measures must be taken in order to explicitly mention the public purpose issues for which acquisition of lands shall be permissible. Absence of the condign assertion of public purpose leave scope for interpreting the term to gain personal benefit by the insidious parties. It shall be immoral to evict landowners from their residence without ensuring the fact that such acquisition attempt has been taken to ensure public benefit.

Adopt necessary amendments:

Land acquisition legislation must be amended time to time on the basis of public needs. Rigid laws often fails to achieve its pre- determined objectives.

Set land acquisition limits for non-governmental project:

Proper criteria should be set in order to set a defined limitation while acquiring lands for non-governmental development projects. Non-governmental project in many cases acquire a large amount of land from private property owners which often results in frustration. Proper criteria should be set for such projects in order to compel such non-governmental agencies or organizations to submit proper architect structural documents, safety measures initiation, scientific reports of future productiveness, environment clearance certificate and other necessary documents on the basis of which, a limit for such acquisition can be provided by the government.

Endeavour proper measures to return unused acquired land:

Provisions should be introduced in special circumstances, in order to return the acquired land to their previous owners if the lands are not being used for the acquired purpose. It will result in a tremendous loss for the previous owner of the land if such property is kept abundant as we have witnessed in the previously mentioned case Kelo vs City of London. Proper authority must be appointed by the government in order to operate the return of land, procedure and to keep proper record of the incident.

Provide adequate time for filing objection:

Adequate time for filing objection should be maintained by the present legislation. Most of the land owners are not concerned of acquisition procedure. Moreover, they do not possess proper knowledge on complaint procedure, the determined limitation period for filing an objection, and so on. Therefore, it is a serious shortcoming of the legislation which should be solved by providing the concerned parties an adequate period of time for filing objection. It shall also ensure transparency of the whole procedure and will also ascertain the fact that such parties are provided sufficient opportunities to conserve their rights.

Conclusion:

Eminent domain is the nonpareil aptitude of the government in order to take extreme decisions for the welfare of its citizen. However, it should be kept in mind that when a law’s apparent purpose is to only ensure enforcement of government’s domain power while overlooking the fact that such legislation is not safeguarding rights of affected parties, rather creating tension among the mass public, such legislation is already a desponding fiasco. It is a matter of dissatisfaction that the present land acquisition legislation in Bangladesh is seemingly reflecting such prominence in a great propagation. The paper has proposed some solutions along with addressing the defects of the land acquisition legislation which should be undertaken as an urgent approach to avoid further hardship of the suffered parties. Though the acquisition of land has significance to develop infrastructure of the country, it is also an extreme necessity to supervise the absolute rights of the concerned citizen to ensure that their basic rights are not grossly violated through the land acquisition procedure. The national land acquisition legislation should introduce more citizen-friendly procedural provisions to guarantee the fact that the acquisitions are not putting adverse effects on the life of concerned parties. The land is a vital component of life for the people of Bangladesh. The acquisition of land procedure, therefore, should be conducted in an amicable manner. Proper supervision and well-versed legislation can ensure the fruitful outcome of land acquisition.

Writer: Sumaiya Sultana Ritu, LL.B (Hons’) 3^rd Year, Department of Land Management and Law Jagannath University.

Endnote:

[i] Md. Ariful Islam, Law and Practice for Land Acquisition in Bangladesh, Bangladesh Journal of Legal Studies, 12^th January, 2019, < https://bdjls.org/law-and-practice-for-land-acquisition-in-bangladesh/> accessed on 2 September, 2021

[ii] Section: 2(1)

[iii] Abu Bakar Siddique & Md. Azhar Uddin Bhuiyan, ‘Preserving People’s Right to Property: Demystifying the Dichotomy of the term ‘Public Purpose’ in case of Acquisition and Requisition of Land’, BANGLADESH LAW DIGEST (BDLD) [2017] <https://bdlawdigest.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Preserving-Peoples-Right-to-Property-1.pdf> accessed on 3 September, 2021

[iv] Venkanth ananth, ‘The Evolution of the Land Acquisition Act’, mint,[2015] < https://www.livemint.com/Politics/T2tN2OWzJIy9SuFgsGsmHN/The-evolution-of-the-Land-Acquisition-Act-from-1824-to-2015.html> accessed on January 31, 2022

[v] Ibid

[vi] Kritya Sinha and Neha Singh, ‘LAND ACQUISITION IN INDIA: HISTORY AND PRESENT SCENARIO’, JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES AND RESEARCH [VOL. 2 ISSUE 4] ISSN 2455-2437, <https://thelawbrigade.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Kritya-Neha-Singh.pdf > accessed on January 3, 2022

[vii] Ibid

[viii] Syed Al Atahar, ‘“Development Project, Land Acquisition and Resettlement in Bangladesh; A Quest for Well Formulated National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy” [2013], International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Vol. 3(No. 7):pp.306-319 <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276268916_Development_Project_Land_Acquisition_and_Resettlement_in_Bangladesh_A_Quest_for_Well_Formulated_National_Resettlement_and_Rehabilitation_Policy> accessed on 3 January, 2022

[ix] ‘Doctrine of Eminent Domain’, Wallcliffs Law Firm. December 2020 Issue 05, (30^th December, 2020) <https://www.wallcliffslawfirm.com/uploads/newsletter-files/2020123017210961066-Legal_Angle_-_December_2020_-_Issue_05.pdf> accessed on 28th August, 2021.

[x] K. Shamsuddin Mahmud, ‘Eminent Domain: Has the Doctrine Became Futile?’, The Daily Star, 17^th January, 2017, <https://www.thedailystar.net/law-our-rights/eminent-domain-has-the-doctrine-become-futile-1346263> accessed on 28th August, 2021.

[xi] [1995] 47 DLR 280

[xii] Abu Bakar Siddique & Md. Azhar Uddin Bhuiyan, ‘Preserving People’s Right to Property: Demystifying the Dichotomy of the term ‘Public Purpose’ in case of Acquisition and Requisition of Land’, BANGLADESH LAW DIGEST (BDLD) [2017] <https://bdlawdigest.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Preserving-Peoples-Right-to-Property-1.pdf> accessed on 3 September, 2021

[xiii] The Acquisition of Waste Land Act, 1950, Laws of Bangladesh, < http://bdlaws.minlaw.gov.bd/act-details-234.html> accessed on 4^th September, 2021

[xiv] [1996] AIR SC 1788

[xv] Abu Bakar Siddique & Md. Azhar Uddin Bhuiyan, ‘Preserving People’s Right to Property: Demystifying the Dichotomy of the term ‘Public Purpose’ in case of Acquisition and Requisition of Land’, Bangladesh Law Digest (BDLD), 2017 < https://bdlawdigest.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Preserving-Peoples-Right-to-Property-1.pdf> accessed on 1^st September, 2021

[xvi] 348 U.S. 26 [1954]

[xvii] ‘Berman vs Parker’, (Wikipedia, 17^th August 2020)< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berman_v._Parker> accessed January 6, 2021

[xviii] [1975] AIR SC 697

[xix] Abul Basar v. Bangladesh and others [1998] 50 DLR (AD) 11

[xx] IIya Somin, ‘Opinion: The story behind Kelo v. City of New London – how an obscure takings case got to the Supreme Court and shocked the nation’, The Washington Post, 29^th May, 2015 <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/29/the-story-behind-the-kelo-case-how-an-obscure-takings-case-came-to-shock-the-conscience-of-the-nation/> accessed on 1^st September, 2021

[xxi] Munima Sultana, ‘Land acquisition a new problem area for RHD’, (The Financial Express, June 12, 2018) <https://thefinancialexpress.com.bd/economy/bangladesh/land-acquisition-a-new-problem-area-for-rhd-1528606505>accessed on 4 September, 2021

[xxii] ‘Arable Land (Hectars Per Person)- Bangladesh’, The World Bank,<https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.ARBL.HA.PC?locations=BD>accessed on 4^th September,2021

[xxiii] Syed Al Atahar ,“Development Project, Land Acquisition and Resettlement in Bangladesh; A Quest for Well Formulated National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy”, Vol. 3 No. 7; April 2013, International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, < http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_3_No_7_April_2013/33.pdf> accessed on 2 September, 2021

[xxiv] ‘Bangladesh Population’, Worldometer, < https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/bangladesh-population/#:~:text=Bangladesh%202020%20population%20is%20estimated, (and%20dependencies) %20by%20population.> Accessed on January 4,2021

[xxv] Bangladesh Acts, Bangladesh Gazette Extraordinary, CommonLII, 9th July, 1995 <http://www.commonlii.org/bd/legis/num_act/jmbpaa1995520/> accessed on 2 September, 2021.

[xxvi] Section: 5(1)

[xxvii] Section: 4

[xxviii] Section: 43

[xxix] Section: 9(1)

[xxx] Priyanshu Gupta, ‘Determination of Market Value for Land Acquisition’, Manupatra <http://docs.manupatra.in/newsline/articles/Upload/42A8A66F-AAA2-48BF-BC7C F33D34C59A52.pdf> accessed on 3 September 2021