The authorities of Modhumoti Model Town (MMT) and Rajuk are yet to implement the Supreme Court directives to restore the wetlands of Savar where the housing scheme was developed, citing five review petitions pending with it against the verdict.

Even the lawyers concerned with the case could not specifically say when the review petitions would be heard and disposed of by the apex court, although the deadline given by it for reviving the wetlands had expired about two years ago.

On July 11, 2013, the Appellate Division of the SC released the full text of the 159-page verdict, directing MMT's owner -- Metro Makers and Developers Ltd (MMDL) -- to restore within six months the wetlands in Bilamalia and Bailarpur mouzas of Savar where it had built the project.

The court came up with the verdict to keep the area a free flood-flow zone and protect the capital city from waterlogging.

The company had developed the housing project, filling up 550 acres of wetland identified as floodplains in the 1997 Dhaka City Master Plan.

The verdict also ruled that a family or a body could not acquire more than 100 bighas of land as per President's Orders No-98 of 1972.

In case of MMDL's failure to comply with the order, Rajuk would take up the work at the company's expense, said the apex court verdict.

The MMDL had also been directed to refund double the money it had charged customers for each plot of land, including the registration cost, in six months.

In September 2013, MMDL and plot purchasers had filed five separate petitions with the SC for a review of the verdict.

Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (Bela), a party in the case, had sent a notice to the Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (Rajuk) in April 2014, asking it to restore the wetlands as per the SC directives. Bela is yet to get any reply from Rajuk.

Ahsanur Rahman, a lawyer for the plot purchasers, said the MMDL had not taken any initiative to restore the wetlands due to vagueness in the guidelines of the SC verdict.

“There was no specific guideline in the verdict about who will get the possession of the land, how the money will be refunded to the plot purchasers, and what will be the fate of the land deeds,” he added.

The SC had not mentioned in its full judgment the grounds on which it delivered the verdict, the lawyer said, adding that the review petitions had been submitted to the SC, seeking its guidelines on how the directives would be implemented.

Ahsanur and Bela's Chief Executive Syeda Rizwana Hasan said they did not know when the SC would fix a date for hearing the review petitions.

Rizwana said the SC directives over reviving the wetlands in Savar were still being violated, although the directives were not stayed.

Neither MMDL nor the plot purchasers had taken any initiative for the hearing, she said, adding that her organisation would move a contempt of court petition before the SC against MMDL and Rajuk for not complying with its directives.

Rajuk's lawyer AFM Mesbahuddin said he was not aware whether the review petitions have been heard or disposed of by the apex court.

There is no legal bar for Rajuk to implement the SC directives, he added.

Contacted, Rajuk's acting chairman Abdur Rahman told this correspondent earlier this month that he did not get the any directives from the SC.

“I have heard about such directives, but I did not get any written order. If I get the directives, I'll take necessary steps to implement them,” he added.

On July 27, 2005, the HC declared the MMT project “unauthorised, illegal and against public interest” but ordered that the interest of around 3,500 plot purchasers be protected.

On August 7, 2012, the apex court delivered a short verdict after hearing five separate appeals filed in 2009, challenging different portions of the HC verdict.

Of the appeals, two were filed by MMDL while its land purchasers, Rajuk and Bela each filed one.

Asked about restoring the wetland, Zakaria Khan, general manager of Modhumoti Model Town, said the court directed the Rajuk authorities to restore the area.

“But our clients appealed against it. The matter is still in the court,” he added.