President’s Order No.16 of 1972
Article 4 and
The Ordinance No.LIV of 1985
Article 5(2)
Abandoned property– In the judgment of the High Court Division it is apparent that it’s clearly misconstrued and misread the relevant law i.e. the provisions of P.O. No.16 of 1972 because property in question was abandoned first in 1972 as owner Mr. Raisat was untraceable from 25th March 1971, after liberation he never took possession, control and manage the property. He also never claimed this property and, as such, the property in question was vested in the Government under Article 4 of the P.O. No.16 of 1972. Thereafter, Gazette dated 23.09.86 vide Ordinance No.LIV of 1985 the property was vested as an abandoned property in the Government. As per provisions of Article 5(2) of the Ordinance No.LIV of 1985 such vesting shall be the conclusive evidence of the fact that buildings included therein are abandoned property. ...Ministry of Housing and Works, Bangladesh =VS= Ala Box, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 83] ....View Full Judgment

President’s Order No.16 of 1972
Article 7 and
The Ordinance No.LIV of 1985
Section 5
Abandoned properties– The respondents filed the writ petition challenging the judgment and order passed by the Court of Settlement and the High Court Division issued Rule under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. So, it appears that the writ petition was filed to challenge the propriety of the judgment and order of the First Court of Settlement, Dhaka and in the instant case, the High Court Division interfered with the findings of facts of the Court of Settlement in exercising the power of writ jurisdiction not being the appellate authority. We do not find any illegality in the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division. ...First Court of Settlement, Dhaka =VS= Mrs Tahera Begum, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 134] ....View Full Judgment

President’s Order No.16 of 1972
Abandoned property–
36 DLR (AD) 146, that once a Property vests in the Government under Presidents Order No.16 of 1972 no legal proceedings can be taken against such property– In a mortgage the stipulations are to be settled between the mortgagor and mortgagee, the Government has no function in the private mortgage deed, so, the issue to be decided in a such suit for foreclosure between the mortgagor and mortgagee, whether, mortgage is genuine, and stipulations of the mortgage was proved or not, so, even if, in the suit the Government is defendant nothing has to be decided against the Government, in the suit for foreclosure, such a decree in law is not binding upon the Government for the enlisted abandoned property. However, the High Court Division has missed the point as discussed. Therefore, by dint of ex-parte decree in the instant foreclosure suit the writ petitioner did not acquire any right and title in the case property. The judgment of the High Court Division is hereby set aside. ...Ministry of Housing and Works, BD =VS= Md. Shafiqullah, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 62] ....View Full Judgment

Abandoned property– The writ-petitioner failed prove his right, title and possession in the case land– There is no iota of evidence on record to show that the writ-petitioner or Ghulam Rabbani ever obtained any permission from the housing settlement authority which causes another hurdle on the part of the writ-petitioner. Since the original kabala dated 08.06.1972 has not been produced by the writ-petitioner (present respondent) and since no voter list, birth, death certificate has not been filed, Appellate Division is in hesitation as to whether executant of such kabala is local and resident of this country. From those facts, circumstances and materials on record, it appears that the writ-petitioner failed prove his right, title and possession in the case land and as such, it appears that learned Judges of the Division Bench are not justified in making the Rule absolute. .....Ministry of Works, Bangladesh =VS= Nazirul Hoq, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 141] ....View Full Judgment

Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary provisions) Order, 1972
Article 2, 3
Martial Law Regulation No.VII of 1977
Articles 4 and 5
General Clauses Act
Section 5(1)(b)(3)
Acting President’s order No.1 of 1972
Section 6
President’s order No.16 of 1972
Article 2(1)
Trust Act, 1882
Sections 94 and 95
Abandoned property— The respondent being a citizen and permanent resident of Bangladesh and having been found to be deemed to be a citizen upon conferment of citizenship under the provisions of the Bangladesh Citizenship (Temporary provisions) Order, 1972, and under Article 3 thereof the Government considering the circumstances having decided as such which shall be final and the appellants have as well failed to prove that he is otherwise disqualified under the concerned laws including the law on abandoned properties.
The onus lies on the Government to substantiate that the plaintiff had abandoned his domicile of choice. But there is no iota of evidence. Rather there are overwhelming evidence in favour of the plaintiffs animo revertendi, that is, leaving behind the members of his family in Bangladesh, management of his industry by his son, his property in Bangladesh, his return to Bangladesh in 1976 within statutory period of seven years. The appeals are accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. .....Sena Kalayan Sangstha =VS= Haji Sufi Fazal Ahmed, (Civil), 2025(2) [19 LM (AD) 188] ....View Full Judgment

The President’s Order.46 of 1972
Article 27(1)(i)/ (d) & 40(2)(t) r/w
The Bangladesh legal practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 1972
Rule 65A
Appellate Division opinion is as under:
(a) A profession of law being founded on great traditions that it is not a business but a part of a scheme of a welfare State where all segments of public reposed faith in them to protect their fundamental rights, they are answerable to the social conscience of the society and have moderate obligation towards them who are unable to protect their interest.
(b) Lawyers are duty bound to contribute in building social order so that the fruits of the social economic justice reach to the poor segment of people of the country, and therefore, a lawyer owes a duty to be fair not only to his client but also to the society.
(c) Bangladesh Bar Council is rendering public utility service and law cast on this Body in the national hope that the members of legal profession will serve society and keep the cannons of ethics defeating an honourable order.
(d) The Bar Council shall frame Rules with approval of the government to monitor the standard of legal education to be observed by universities and law colleges in Bangladesh and the inspection of the universities and colleges for that purpose in accordance with article 40(2)(t) of P.O.46 of 1972.
(e) The Bar Council shall publish a syllabus to be taught by the universities and law colleges compulsorily which will award LLB honours and pass course degree certificates and that no person shall be allowed to be enrolled as an advocate unless he/she obtains a graduation certificate on law on those subjects in accordance with article 27(1)(i) and (d) of P.O. 46 of 1972.
(f) The Bar Council has exclusive power to recognize a decree in law obtained by any person from any university or college and it has power to curtail/exonerate the power to practice of any person either in the district courts or in the High Court Division.
(g) No private university shall issue Bachelor of Law degree unless such person undergoes four years education in law course and this direction shall have prospective effect. No public or private university shall admit students in bachelor of law course more than 50 (fifty) students in a semester.
(h) The Bar Council has power not to recognize any degree in respect of any student for being enrolled as an advocate who has not studied four years horours course in law along with other subjects in any private university.
(i) No public or private university or law college shall issue any law degree certificate to a student which does not have sufficient number of teachers to teach the law subject, as may be prescribed by the Bangladesh Bar Council.
(j) The Bar Council may limit/increase the age limit of a person to be enrolled as an advocate either in the district courts or the High Court Division by framing rules.
(k) Rule 65A of the Bangladesh legal practitioners and Bar Council Rules, 1972 intravires the constitution and P.O. 46 of 1972.
The Bar Council shall complete the enrolment process of the applicants to be enrolled as advocates in the district courts each calendar year. .....Bangladesh Bar Council =VS= A.K.M. Fazlul Kamir, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 132] ....View Full Judgment

State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
Section 95A, 95(4) and (5) r/w
P.O. No.80 of 1972
Usufructory mortgage— Section 95A provides that in any transaction when the transferor received from the transferee any consideration and transferee acquires the right to possess and enjoy usufructory of such holding etc. for specified period in lieu of such consideration than such transfer shall be deemed to be a complete usufructory mortgage for maximum 7 years and the provision of section 95(4) and (5) of the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act shall apply for restoration of possession. After an enjoyment of usufructs for a maximum period of 7 years under section 95A of the State Acquisition and Tenancy the right to get back the property accrues. .....Yaor Mia(Md.) =VS= Haji Shah Dhanai Ali, (Civil), 2024(2) [17 LM (AD) 183] ....View Full Judgment

State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
Section 95A
P.O. 88 of 1972
Usufructuary mortgage– The facts of the case of Abdul Khaleque Sarnamat (Supra) are the same and similar of the instant case. In the instant case, the parties agreed to create the mortgage for a period of 2(two) years and the period of re-conveyance expired on the 31st Chaitra, 1376 B.S. corresponding to 18.04.1970, whereas President’s Order No.88 of 1972 came into force on 03.08.1972 and thus the transaction became a past and closed one, so the plaintiff was not entitled to get redemption of the mortgage created by the kabala dated 18.12.1969. But the High Court Division totally misconceived the facts of the case and failed to appreciate the purport and scope of section 95A of the Act, 1950 vis-a-vis the principle of law enunciated in the case of Abdul Khaleque Sarnamat (supra). ...Abdul Hamid Gayeen(Md.) =VS= Abdul Karim Khan, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 629] ....View Full Judgment