Ejaz allowed a food court on land taken in the name of greening

The work to create a green zone on both sides of the Tongi canal near Neela Market in Sector 1 of Purbachal was taken up by Dhaka North City Corporation (DNCC), which then assigned the work to Vivid ConstructionDrinja Chambugong


Former administrator of Dhaka North City Corporation (DNCC), Mohammad Ejaz, obtained permission to use land belonging to a government agency on the promise of planting trees and carrying out greening. However, no trees were planted there. Instead, under the pretext of “creating a green zone,” he strategically allowed a private company to set up a food court or food stalls.

The incident took place in Sector 1 of the Purbachal New Town Project under the Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK). RAJUK had permitted the city corporation to use the land on both sides of the Tongi canal (lake) near Neela Market for planting trees. But instead of planting trees itself, DNCC approved a privately owned company named Vivid Construction to both carry out greening and establish a food court.

Officials from DNCC’s property department say the work was awarded to Vivid Construction at the discretion of former administrator Mohammad Ejaz. The food court was approved as a way to bear maintenance costs.

However, officials in charge of the RAJUK project say there is no scope to allocate shops on land permitted solely for tree planting. When the company that received permission attempted to set up shops, RAJUK intervened to stop it.

Approval for 15 food courts

According to documents from DNCC’s property department, on 3 November last year, the city corporation granted permission to Xavier S Biswas, managing director of Vivid Construction, to establish a food court. It stated that in exchange for creating a green zone on land reserved as a green belt along both sides of the Tongi canal near Neela Market, the company would set up 15 food court units. The approval was granted for two years based on the company’s application.

The Purbachal New Town Project has not yet come under DNCC’s jurisdiction. The Neela Market area falls under Rupganj upazila of Narayanganj. So why did Vivid apply to DNCC?

In response, Xavier S Biswas told Prothom Alo that they were initially looking for land within Dhaka city corporation limits. At that time, they were advised to apply for the Purbachal site, and they submitted their application on 27 July last year.

Under the interim government, Mohammad Ejaz was appointed DNCC administrator for one year on 12 February last year. His tenure ended on 11 February, the day before the 13th national parliamentary election.
A visit on Wednesday afternoon showed that the allocated site is about 250 meters east of Neela Market, beside the Ichapura Bridge built over the Tongi canal. To the north of the bridge lies the Purbachal Expressway (300-foot road), and to the south is Ichapura Bazar. About 300 meters of land on both banks of the canal has been allocated.

Vivid has installed 14 solar-powered streetlights there. The poles include small light boxes for advertisements reading “Your Ad Here,” along with a contact mobile number. A walkway and cycle lane built by RAJUK already exist along the canal bank.

Permission only for planting trees

Officials of the Purbachal New Town Project say DNCC was allowed to use the land solely for planting trees. The city corporation has no authority to allocate any kind of permanent, temporary, or mobile shops under the pretext of tree planting. Therefore, the company was obstructed from proceeding.

Expressing surprise, RAJUK officials said they could not understand how another agency could allocate shops on RAJUK land. DNCC is also not making any statement on this matter now. Meanwhile, various vested interest groups are reportedly pressuring to allow shops to be set up there.

Additional project director Khandakar Md Wahid Sadiq told Prothom Alo that the permission given to the city corporation was limited and conditional—strictly for greening purposes, not for any permanent or commercial activities. When some individuals attempted to set up shops, they were stopped.

When asked about the approval for the food court, DNCC’s chief property officer Mohammad Shawkat Osman said that maintaining and greening the area involves costs, and from that reality came the idea of allowing a limited number of temporary food vendors. The approval was granted at the administrator’s discretion. Later, due to objections and controversy, the initiative was cancelled.

Former administrator Mohammad Ejaz said the food court plan was an experimental initiative as part of greening, coordinated between RAJUK and local government. The approval was given with a temporary arrangement in mind.

He added that within a week of the approval, allegations of irregularities and attempts to sell the allocations to others emerged, leading to the cancellation of the initiative.

Food court not fully cancelled

Although Mohammad Ejaz and Mohammad Shawkat Osman claim the approval was cancelled, documents show it has not been formally revoked.
A letter issued on 4 December last year to Xavier S Biswas stated that the operation of the 15 food courts had been “temporarily suspended.”

However, activities such as beautification of the lakeside, soil conservation, environmental improvement, biodiversity protection, and creating a green zone for public use would continue.

A source in DNCC’s property department said there were numerous allegations against former administrator Mohammad Ejaz, including abuse of power, irregularities, corruption, and bribery. The Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) began an investigation into these matters on 27 November last year. After that, he cancelled some illegal allocations and approvals made during his tenure, while others were kept suspended—a tactic to keep beneficiary companies “waiting.”

Meanwhile, Xavier S Biswas said the company has suffered financial losses due to the situation. He stated that about 1,300 trees have been planted after clearing the land, and solar installations have been set up, with investments exceeding Taka 1 to Taka 1.5 million. There is also uncertainty regarding the security deposit.