Union Parishad Chairperson and a Contested Char Land Allocation
A union parishad in a riverine district must allocate newly accreted char land among 140 landless households. The union has 95 bighas available. Two lists exist: one prepared by the chairperson's panel naming 80 households, and one prepared by a ward member naming 70, with 30 names overlapping. Local influential families claim historical possession of about 40 bighas and have produced an unregistered deed from 1998. A women's group asks for at least 30 per cent of plots in their own names, noting that current lists name only male household heads. The upazila nirbahi officer has asked for a verified list within three weeks. A national election is expected within a year, and the chairperson is seeking re-election.
1. Design a transparent process to produce a defensible list of beneficiaries within three weeks, addressing the rival lists and the historical claim.
Read the worked answer
Process design:
- Publish the eligibility criteria and the total land available at the union office and by loudspeaker, so the rule is known before names are fixed.
- Constitute a verification committee including the ward member, a female member, a school teacher and a representative of the landless, with the UNO's office observing.
- Merge the two lists into one register, then verify each household against objective tests: landlessness, residence, household income, and prior government allocation.
- Handle the 1998 deed by referring it to the AC Land for adjudication; unregistered deeds do not by themselves establish title, and the committee should not decide title. Set that land aside pending decision rather than distributing it.
- Publish a draft list for seven days with a written objection window, then publish the final list with reasons for exclusions.
Judgement: The chairperson's own panel cannot be the sole basis, because that converts a public resource into patronage. Overlap of 30 names suggests both lists contain genuine claimants; the remaining 120 names need evidence, not bargaining.
2. How should the women's group's demand be handled, and what should the chairperson do about the election incentive?
Read the worked answer
Handling the demand: Allocate plots jointly or in the woman's name where she is the household's primary earner or widow, and set a clear minimum share (for example 30 per cent) written into the published criteria. This is consistent with constitutional commitments to equality and with local government rules encouraging women's participation. Recording women as allottees improves household security and reduces later dispossession.
Election incentive: The chairperson faces a conflict between patronage and fair process. The defensible course is to let the committee's verified list stand even if it disappoints supporters, because a list that survives objection and audit protects the chairperson legally and politically. Distributing land on panel loyalty invites writ petitions, UNO censure and post-election reversal.
Practical step: Announce the criteria publicly and credit the process, not personal favour, for the outcome. A fair list is also a stronger campaign record than a contested one.