Lakshmipur Land Dispute Status Quo Violation Alleged

A dispute has emerged over allegations that a plaintiff violated a court order to maintain the status quo on disputed land in Tewariganj Union of Lakshmipur Sadar Upazila by constructing a house, cutting soil and felling trees.

According to court-related sources and local residents, Nur Jahan Begum and Fatema Begum are involved in a legal dispute over ownership of 36 decimals of land under RS Khatian No. 501, Plot No. 3083, in Adhar Manik Mouza. A case regarding ownership of the land is currently pending before the court.

To preserve the existing condition of the property, Nur Jahan Begum filed a petition for a permanent injunction in the Lakshmipur Senior Assistant Judge Court, naming Fatema Begum and others as defendants.

The defendants claim they complied with the court's directive to maintain the status quo. However, they allege that members of the plaintiff's side later constructed a building on the disputed land, dug soil from the property and cut down several trees.

Fatema Begum alleged that when they attempted to prevent the construction, they faced threats and intimidation. She claimed that on May 19, around 2 a.m., soil was excavated from the land using a machine. After receiving information, members of her family went to the site and contacted the national emergency service 999. Police later visited the area and stopped the soil-cutting activity, she said.

She further alleged that several kauri trees on the land were cut down while family members were away from home.

According to Fatema Begum, the plaintiff's side is continuing activities on the disputed property despite the court order. She said the ownership issue should be resolved through the ongoing court proceedings and that her family is seeking legal remedies.

Responding to the allegations, Monir Hossain, a representative of the plaintiff's family, denied any unlawful occupation. He claimed that his father had legally purchased the land and that the family considers itself the rightful owner.

He said local residents are aware of their ownership claim and alleged that members of the opposing side obstructed efforts to construct a building on part of the property. He also claimed that crops grown on the land had been harvested by the defendants. According to him, soil from nearby agricultural land was later used to fill low-lying areas around the property on the advice of local residents, and this did not violate the court's order.

The ownership dispute remains under judicial consideration, and no court ruling has yet been issued on the allegations made by either side.