Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD)
Abandoned Buildings (Supplementary Provision) Ordinance (LIV Of 1985) | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 2(b) |
Court of Settlement
|
Bangladesh and another Vs Mrs. Shirely Anny Ansari | 20 BLD (AD) 284 |
Sections 2(a), 5 & 6 |
The expression 'building' has been defined in section 2(a) of the
Ordinance, which means "any residential or other building or structure of
any kind in an urban area and includes the land adjunct thereto, and the
Court yard, tank, place of worship and private burial or cremation ground
appertaining to such building". From the above definition there is no
gainsaying that building includes any structure in the urban area and any
land adjunct thereto. There is no dispute that there are structures on the
disputed land as has been admitted by the writ petitioner in the writ
petition. In view of this admitted position, there is no merit in the
contention of the learned Advocate for the respondent. Over and above,
admittedly the property has not been enlisted in the abandoned property
list in accordance with section 5 of the Ordinance.
|
Jahangir Alam (Md) vs Md. Shamsur Rahman Sarder | 16 BLC (AD) 22 |
Section 2(b) |
The Court of Settlement was not a Court for determining the title of the
rival claimants. It is a court only for determination as to whether the
case property is an abandoned property or not.
|
Ministry of Public Works vs Chairman, Court of Settlement and others | 50 DLR (AD) 93 |
Section 3 |
Section 3 of the Ordinance provides that the provisions of Ordinance shall
have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent herewith contained in any
other law for the time being in force. The provisions of the Ordinance
shall have overriding effect over the provisions of the Bangladesh
Abandoned Property Order, 1972.
|
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh vs Orex Network Ltd | 17 BLC (AD) 196 |
Section 3(2) |
The Settlement Court correctly applied the provision of law i.e. Article 2
of the PO No.16 of 1972 as there was absolutely no iota of evidence or
material produced by the petitioner to show that Abdur Rahman, the alleged
vendor of the respondent was present in Bangladesh or his whereabouts were
known on 28-2-1972 and, as such, the alleged kabala of the respondent dated
24-4-1974 was by a fictitious nonexistent Abdur Rahman by impersonation.
|
Bangladesh vs Mohiuddin | 15 BLC (AD) 179 |
Section 5 |
No notice under section 5 of the Ordinance–
|
Ministry of Public Works & Housing =VS= Md. Haroon | 5 LM (AD) 348 |
Section 5(1) |
Condonation delay of 1155 days–
|
Public Works Department =VS= Md. Nizamuddin | 5 LM (AD) 374 |
Section 5(l) |
Notice for surrendering or taking possession-Held: On going through the judgment of the Court of Settlement we find that those notices were issued on the respondent Nos.l-6 to produce their vendor Bib Homier when they had applied for mutating their names after their purchase from Bib Homier. Thus it appears that the Government petitioner did neither treat the disputed property as abandoned property nor nook any step to take over possession of the same till publication of Gazette notification in question. Since no notice as contemplated under Section 5(1 )(b) of the said Ordinance was issued to the respondent Nos.l-6 or any other person inclusion of the disputed property in the "Kha" list of the abandoned buildings is without lawful authority. Bangladesh Vs. Amela Khatoon & Ors. 9 BLT (AD)-98. |
Bangladesh Vs. Amela Khatoon & Ors. | 9 BLT (AD) 98 |
Sections 5(l)(a) (b) (2), 7 |
Settlement the initial presumption is that the enlisted building is an abandoned rroperty and that the onus lise on the claimant to show that it is not an abandoned property. The onus will be discharged by showing that on the date of promulgation of P.O. No. 16 of 1972 the owner of his Attorney or his representative was in possession of the disputed property and was managing the same. Bangladesh vs Mr. K.M. Zaker Hossain (Md. RuhulAmin J) (Civil) 1 ADC 371 |
Bangladesh vs Mr. K.M. Zaker Hossain | 1 ADC 371 |
Sections 5, Article 7 |
Since there was no notice contemplated under Article 7 and there was non-compliance of the provision of section 5 of the Ordinance No. 54 of 1985 as no notice under section 5(1) (a) of the Ordinance was ever served and as such the property was wrongly included in the 'ka' list of the abandoned building and the listing as such is undoubtly has been done illegally and without any lawful authority. Abdur Rashid Mollah vs Bangladesh (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 2 ADC 45 |
Abdur Rashid Mollah vs Bangladesh | 2 ADC 45 |
Section 5(2) |
In a situation when the heirs of original allottee were all through in this country the High Court Division rightly found that the property has been wrongly enlisted as abandoned property. This aspect of the matter has not been properly considered by the Court of Settlement". Govt. BMWUD. Dhaka vs Alhaj Shamsul Hoque (Md Ruhul Amin J) (Civil)2 ADC 48 |
Govt. BMWUD. Dhaka vs Alhaj Shamsul Hoque | 2 ADC 48 |
Section 5 |
Presumptive value of enlistment of abandoned property-
|
Government of Bangladesh Vs. Ashraf Ali & another | 2 MLR (AD) 96 |
Section 5(l)(b) |
Decree of specific performance of contract is no bar to enlistment—
|
CQM.H. Md. Ayub Ali Vs. Bangladesh & others | 1 MLR (AD) 75 |
Section 5 |
Service of notice as to enlistment of abandoned Property—
|
Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of Works and others Vs. Helaluddin Ahmed | 4 MLR (AD) 140 |
Section 5 |
Decree in a suit for Specific Performance of Contract-whether such a decree
can be pleaded as a bar for inclusion of a building in the list of
abandoned property.
|
CQMH Md Ayub Ali vs Bangladesh and others | 47 DLR (AD) 71 |
Section 5 |
Proviso (a) The ex parte decree obtained by the writ petitioner is a declaratory decree simpliciter without any prayer for recovery of possession, when, admittedly, the writ petitioenr was not in possession thereof. Such a decree is not within the contemplation of proviso (a) to Section 5. Bangladesh vs Anwar Ahmed and others 51 DLR (AD) 42. |
Bangladesh vs Anwar Ahmed and others | 51 DLR (AD) 42 |
Section 5(1)(a) |
The High Court Division, in our opinion, could itself interfere,
notwithstanding correctly observing that there was an alternative remedy
under section 7 of the Ordinance, in view of the particular facts of the
case. The Ordinance was promulgated on 28 November 1985 and the list under
section 5(l)(a) thereof was published in the gazette on 28-4- 1986. Section
7 provides that any person claiming any right or interest in any building
which is included in the list may within a period of 108 (perhaps 190) days
from the date of the publication of the list in the official gazette make
an application to the court of settlement for exclusion of the building
from such list, etc. It is not disputed that although the notification was
published on 28-4-1986 the court of settlement was constituted on
21-10-1986. The appellant filed the writ petition on 19-8-1986, apparently
at a time when the court of settlement was yet to be constituted. The High
Court Division may not have admitted the petition at all because of the
aforesaid provision but having admitted the same, apparently being aware
that the court · of settlement was not constituted then, it was not quite
proper to decline interference after three yars on the ground of
alternative remedy, more so. having itself noticed that the Ministry of
Home Affairs did not even come up with an affidavit to asert the presence
of a Police Box as stated by the contesting respondents in their
affidavit-inopposition in spite of a specific direction in that behalf.
|
Begum Lutfunnessa vs Bangladesh | 42 DLR (AD) 86 |
Section 5(1)(b) |
Since no notice as contemplated under section 5(1)(b) of the Ordinance was issued to the respondent or any other person inclusion of the disputed property in the "Kha" list of the abandoned buildings is without lawful authority. Bangladesh vs Amela Khatoon and ors 53 DLR (AD) 55. |
Bangladesh vs Amela Khatoon and ors. | 53 DLR (AD) 55 |
Section 5(2) |
The Ordinance has created a special forum to deal with a property enlisted as abandoned property. A special procedure has also been made therein to decide those cases. A legal presumption has also been attached under section 5(2) of the Ordinance to the list published under sub-section (1) as a conclusive evidence that the enlisted property is an abandoned property. Bangladesh vs Anwar Ahmed and others 51 DLR (AD) 42. |
Bangladesh vs Anwar Ahmed and others | 51 DLR (AD) 42 |
Sections 5(2) & 7 |
The Government has no obligation either to deny the facts alleged by the claimant or to disclose the basis of treating the property as abandoned property merely because the same is disputed by the claimant. Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Works vs Md Jalil & others 49 DLR (AD) 26. |
Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Works vs Md Jalil & others | 49 DLR (AD) 26 |
Section 5(2) |
Section 5(2) of the Ordinance provides that the list published under
sub-section (1) shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that the buildings
included in the list are abandoned properties and have vested in the
Government.
|
Government of Bangladesh -Vs.- A. T. M. Mannan | 2 ALR (AD) 50 |
Section 5 |
The Abandoned Buildings (Supplementary Provisions) Ordinance, 1985
|
Amena Khatun(Mrs.) =VS= The Chairman, Court of Settlement | 9 LM (AD) 128 |
Section 5(1), 7 |
A Court must give reasons for its decision in a case. The reasons should include an explanation of why the Court has chosen to follow or not to follow a previous decision which is identical before it. When an earlier decision is not followed it is said to be distinguished from the earlier case. The earlier finding of the Court of Settlement and presumption that enlistment of a building under section 5(1) of the Ordinance that the property is an abandoned property and admission of the claimant petitioner that he was dispossessed from the disputed property in 1972 and discussions made above clearly established that S. Jamil Aktar, S. Jalil Aktar and S. Nehal Ahmed could not occupy, manage or supervise the disputed property when P.O.16 of 1972 came into operation. From the papers produced in C.P. No.2427 of 2018 it appears that some important pages of a document in connection with the disputed property were removed from the office of Housing Settlement and Works. Appellate Division does not find any illegality in the judgment and order of the High Court Division which call for any interference by this Division. .....S. Nehal Ahmed =VS= Bangladesh, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 528] ....View Full Judgment |
S. Nehal Ahmed =VS= Bangladesh | 16 LM (AD) 528 |
Article 5(2) |
President’s Order No.16 of 1972
|
Ministry of Housing and Works, Bangladesh =VS= Ala Box | 10 LM (AD) 83 |
Section 5 |
President’s Order No.16 of 1972
|
First Court of Settlement, Dhaka =VS= Mrs Tahera Begum | 10 LM (AD) 134 |
Section 6 |
Abandoned property–– In the writ petition he did not clarify as to how he acquired title in the disputed property. He stated in paragraphs 6 and 7 that he got possession of the disputed land through Court in pursuance of the judgment passed "in Civil Suit No.371 of 1991". This is totally based upon distorted fact. Abdul Wahed Sarder instituted the above suit who got ex-parte decree. The writ petitioner is neither claiming title on the basis of purchase from Abdul Wahed Sarder nor as a successor of Abdul Wahed Sarder. Admittedly he is not the son of Abdul Wahed Sarder. In such view of the matter, Appellate Division finds that the High Court Division upon superficial consideration of the materials on record made the rule absolute. Therefore, the reasons basing upon which the High Court Division declared the impugned notice illegal are not available to the writ petitioner. In view of the above, the High Court Division committed fundamental error in making the rule absolute. .....Jahangir Alam(Md.) =VS= Md. Shamsur Rahman Sarder, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 212] ....View Full Judgment |
Jahangir Alam(Md.) =VS= Md. Shamsur Rahman Sarder | 13 LM (AD) 212 |
Section 6 Clause (a) |
Under Clause (a) of section 6 of the Ordinance a suit for specific
performance of a contract in respect of a property which has been
officially listed as abandoned property is not maintainable in law.
|
Government of Bangladesh -Vs.- A. T. M. Mannan | 2 ALR (AD) 50 |
Section 7(1) |
A judgment obtained by playing fraud is a nullity–
|
Ministry of Housing & Public Works =VS= M/S. Hanif Brothers | 5 LM (AD) 92 |
Section 7 |
Abandoned property– Unless the claimant/ complainant can prove by filing application under section 7 of the said Ordinance of 1985 before the Court of Settlement within 180 days from the date of publication of such list in the official gazette for exclusion of the same from such list or return or restoration of the same to him on the ground that the building is not an abandoned building and has not vested in the government as the owner's whereabouts are known and she/he did not leave this country during the war of liberation and he/ she is a citizen of Bangladesh, the presumption would be that the property is an abandoned property and vested in the government. On the contrary the present appellant produced a good number of papers to show that after taking over the property and publishing the same in the "Ka" List the property has been leased out by the Government to different lessees on receipt of rents and lastly the same has been allotted to a widow of a freedom fighter who while residing there died in the said property and her successor, as a subsequent allottee, is in possession of the same. Hence Appellate Division is of the view that the High Court Division did not consider either of the aforementioned aspects and exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 102 of the Constitution to make the Rule Nisi absolute by the impugned judgment and order which is liable to be interfered with by this Court. .....Ministry of Works, Bangladesh =VS= Sabia Yasmin Hena, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 21] ....View Full Judgment |
Ministry of Works, Bangladesh =VS= Sabia Yasmin Hena | 13 LM (AD) 21 |
Section 7 |
Court of Settlement not to decide title—
|
Government of Bangladesh Vs. Chairman, Court of-Settlement | 50 DLR (AD) 93 |
Section 7 |
Decision given by Court of Settlement not properly constituted—
|
Hasina Khatun and others Vs. Bangladesh & Others | 48 DLR (AD) 13 |
Section 7 |
Decision of the civil court is binding upon court of Settlement and the
party as well—
|
Moinuddin (Md.) Vs. Bangladesh and another | 48 DLR(AD) 56 |
Section 7 |
For excluding his purchase property from the ‘Kha’ list of abandoned properties published in the Bangladesh Gazette– The said facts were required to be urged evidentially before the courts below. Unless such a factual foundation is available it is not possible to decide such a mixed question of law and facts. Therefore, such a mixed question of law and facts should not be allowed to be raised at the time of final hearing of appeal before this Division. It is apparent that the decision of the Court of Settlement is based on mere speculation or mere suspicions having no quality affording proof of evidence. There is no substantial evidence to rebut the claim of PW.2 Salma Khatun who in her deposition asserted that her father died in Dhaka in 1972 leaving behind her as only heir to succeed. Appellate Division finds no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 07.04.1997 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.784 of 1991 is hereby maintained. .....Chairman, Court of Settlement =VS= Moulavi Syed Karim, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 87] ....View Full Judgment |
Chairman, Court of Settlement =VS= Moulavi Syed Karim | 12 LM (AD) 87 |
Section 7 |
Abandoned Buildings (Supplementary Provision) Ordinance
|
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Mir Md. Imam Hossain | 8 LM (AD) 176 |
Sections 7, 10 r/w |
Abandoned Buildings (Supplementary Provisions) Ordinance, 1985
|
Raihana Shafi =VS= First Court of Settlement, Dhaka | 16 LM (AD) 517 |
Section 10 |
High Court Division not a court of appeal against judgment of Court of
Settlemnt—
|
Mustafa Kamal (Md.) Vs. First Court of Settlement and others | 48 DLR (AD) 61 |
Section 10 |
Rent actually received by the Government from the date of unauthorised
occupation till the date of restoration of possession be paid and vacant
possession of the property be restored to the respondent as directed by the
High Court Division.
|
Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Work and others vs Md Javed Alam | 56 DLR (AD) 21 |
Section 10(5) |
The Court of Settlement dismissed the case for default although the law
requires a decision is to be given as to whether the enlistment of the
abandoned building had been done legally or not- The High Court Division
rightly sent the case back on remand for deciding the issue in the light of
the observation made.
|
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and another vs Md Shamsul Haque and anr. | 56 DLR (AD) 101 |
Section 10(5) |
The denial of a fair trial will only arise if a proper opportunity is not
afforded to the person for producing his evidence or any evidence sought to
be adduced by him is unreasonably shut out or he is not given a reasonable
opportunity of being heard. A Court of Settlement under section 10(5) is
obliged to make such enquiry as it may deem necessary and give reasonable
opportunity to the parties concerned of being heard and to produce
evidence, both oral and documentary, if any.
|
CQMH Md Ayub Ali vs Bangladesh and others | 47 DLR (AD) 71 |
Section 10 |
Review–– The law does not provide any provision to review a judgment and order passed by the Court of Settlement at the instance of third party whose claimed, if any, is barred by the provision of limitation. .....Raihana Shafi =VS= First Court of Settlement, Dhaka, (Civil), 2024(1) [16 LM (AD) 517] ....View Full Judgment |
.Raihana Shafi =VS= First Court of Settlement, Dhaka | 16 LM (AD) 517 |
Abandoned Building– |
Abandoned Building–
|
Ministry of Housing and Public Works, BD =VS= Shahida Begum | 8 LM (AD) 10 |
Abandoned Property– |
Abandoned Property–
|
Noor Mohammad Khan =VS= Raisa Aziz Begum | 8 LM (AD) 248 |