Was the violation case against that UNO pre-planned?

A legal conflict has emerged between the local court and the administration in Shahjadpur, Sirajganj, over the ownership of land acquired for the Thana Complex in 1983. As a result of this conflict, a violation case was filed against Upazila Executive Officer (UNO) Sabrina Sharmin. Not only that, an application was also made to keep the UNO in detention for six months in the same case.

A review of documents reveals that the decision which led to the contempt of court (civil violation) charge against UNO Sabrina Sharmin was taken before the court's temporary and interim injunction order had reached her. On June 18, the court issued an interim injunction regarding the land matter and ordered the issuance of a notice. However, that order reached the defendants on June 30. Yet, on June 21, based on the decision of the district development coordination meeting and a special meeting of the upazila, the UNO, following the instructions of higher authorities, wrote to the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department in Sirajganj requesting to keep the construction of the boundary wall of the court building suspended.

An analysis of the court and upazila administration's documents shows that on July 14, the court's sheristadar filed a civil violation case against the UNO. Later, on July 19, the UNO submitted a written objection.

In her objection, she alleged that the interim injunction was issued without giving the government side a hearing and that the notice was not properly served. She also noted that the plaintiff and the court are the same, as the plaintiff stated in the case that the plaintiff is the court.

The judge, citing the objection as contemptuous towards the court, on July 23 ordered the UNO to appear in person on July 26 to explain her stance. However, when the UNO sought time due to illness and for preparation, the request was rejected. At the same time, the defendants' application to stay proceedings until the disposal of the transfer petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code in the District Judge's court was also rejected. Additionally, the court ordered the Secretary of the Ministry of Public Administration to take departmental action against the UNO and submit a report to the court. Subsequently, July 30 was set for the ex-parte testimony of the plaintiff. However, proceedings in the case are currently stayed at the lower court level.

According to the upazila administration, the UNO office received the court's order of July 26 on the afternoon of July 28. Before that, the defendants had not received a copy of that order despite applying for it.

However, on July 27, the details of the order were circulated on social media. At that time, the upazila administration took a copy of the order from a person who is not associated with the court, even though the UNO did not receive it before July 28.

According to documents, the Deputy Commissioner had already applied to transfer the case to the District Judge's Court under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code on July 16. The hearing on that application was scheduled for August 6. However, the violation case proceedings were expedited in the original court before that. Meanwhile, the government side has had the case documents transferred to the Sirajganj Sadar Court by invoking Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Allegations suggest that the violation case against the UNO was filed hurriedly due to the ongoing dispute between the upazila parishad and the court over land ownership.

According to the upazila parishad's asset records, the 0.6512 acres of land currently used by the court is also recorded in the upazila parishad's khotian, and the land development tax is still being paid by the upazila parishad. The layout plan of the 1983 Thana Complex also identified approximately 0.3342 acres of land for the court. However, the plaintiff's amended petition claims the court possesses about 7.06 acres of land. But on the ground, various offices and quarters of the upazila parishad exist there.

The plaintiff's claims do not match reality, as seen in the upazila parishad's asset statement.

In the case petition, the court's sheristadar claimed that the upazila parishad's gazetted and non-gazetted quarters are in their possession.

Advocate Md Anwar Hossain, the lawyer for the court, who claims the upazila parishad's asset statement is incorrect, said the violation case against the UNO was filed following proper procedure. Nothing was done hastily.

However, upazila parishad documents show that the gazetted and non-gazetted quarters and dormitories are occupied by officials and employees of various departments.

This is also evident on the ground. Electricity, rent and gas bills are being paid by the upazila parishad.

Upazila Youth Development Officer Moniruzzaman Monir said he has been asked to vacate his office, along with the upazila information office, from the court building. The court is claiming the quarters and dormitories as theirs, which the plaintiff also noted in the petition.

Babul Hasan, a security guard at the UNO's office, and Liton Hossain, a night guard at the social services office, who live in the dormitory, said they have been residing there for a long time. However, recently, court employees have been pressuring them to vacate the rooms.

Upazila Parishad Administrative Officer Taiful Bari and Academic Supervisor Md Milon Hossain, who live with their families in the quarter building managed by the upazila parishad, also said they have been asked to leave by the court.