IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH HIGH COURT DIVISION

      (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

Writ Petition No. 13324 of 2018. In the matter of:

An application under article 102 (2) of the Constitution  of  the  People’s  Republic  of Bangladesh.

-And-

In the matter of: Begum Nadira Sultana.

...... Petitioner

-Versus-

The Government of Bangladesh represented by  the  Secretary,  Ministry  of Communication and Railway and others.

. . respondents.

Mr. Md. Ali Haider, Advocate

. . . For the petitioner.

Mr. Md. Aktaruzzaman, Advocate

. . . For the respondent No.2.

              Present:

Mr. Justice J. B. M. Hassan                and

Mr. Justice Razik Al Jalil   

Heard and Judgment on 03.07.2024.

J. B. M. Hassan, J.

The petitioner obtained the Rule Nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the respondents should not be directed to execute and register  the  sale  deed  in  favour  of  the  petitioner  pursuant  to  open  bid conducted  by  respondent  No.3  and  handed  over  possession  of  the  land measuring  19.75  Kathas  under  Mouza  Mohora,  near  Janali  Hut  Station (Ispahanis Siding line, Chittagong) of Lot No. KA, Plots No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and BS sheet 6 and 7 B.S. Dag No. 18785 and 18227 under District-Chittagong and/or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

2

Relevant facts involved in the writ petition are that through a competitive bid  the  petitioner  purchased  the  schedule  land  from  the  respondent-railway department and accordingly, made entire payment. But sale deed having not been executed and registered regarding the schedule land, the petitioner filed this writ petition and obtained the present Rule Nisi.

During pendency of the Rule, due to passing different interim orders on the basis of the petitioner applications, eventually the respondent-railway department executed and registered sale deed and today by filing supplementary affidavit learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that possession of schedule land has also handed over in favour of the petitioner.

In the circumstances, both the learned Advocate for the petitioner and the respondents No. 2 and 3 jointly submit that the Rule may be disposed of as the petitioner received possession regarding the schedule land by virtue of the said sale deed.

Regard being had to the above, the Rule is disposed of.

Communicate a copy of this judgment and order to the respondents at

once.

Razik Al Jalil, J                                                          I agree.