Since the Government having granted lease to the petitioner at a subsequent stage, and the lease never having been cancelled by the Government, the petitioner acquired valid and lawful right in respect of the land in question and this right, interest and possession of the lease hold property cannot be disturbed at the instance of a stranger.
The Appellate Division observed that the High Court Division, upon accepting the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner that there was no break in respect of the possession of the petitioner in the case land, made the Rule absolute declaring that the impugned order of eviction was issued without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
Moreso, since the Government having granted lease to the petitioner at a subsequent stage, and the lease never having been cancelled by the Government, the petitioner acquired valid and lawful right in respect of the land in question and this right, interest and possession of the lease hold property cannot be disturbed at the instance of a stranger. Appellate Division also note that admittedly the writ petitioner has been living in the property in question from the time when his father was the lessee, and he is still in possession. Admittedly added respondent No.6 and Md. Nurul Islam never got possession.
Moreover, the writ petitioner has since been granted lease by the authority concerned. Hence, there can be no question of evicting him.
Md. Nurul Amin -Vs.- Dullah Miah @ Dulal Miah @ Md. Ibrahim (Dulla) and others (Civil) 10 ALR (AD) 237-239

Challenging the notice bearing No.DEO/ Dhaka/Eviction/BG Mia/5162/1117 dated 30.11.1995 issued by the present petitioner i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, Railway Land and Buildings, Bangladesh Railway, Dhaka directing the respondent No.1 to vacate plot No.97 of Mouza Kawranbazar within seven days–– It transpires that the Housing and Public Works Department has supported the case of the writ petitioner respondent that it allotted the land in question to the writ petitioner-respondent on 30.07.1995, handed over the possession of the same on 04.10.1995 and executed the lease deed on 04.11.2004 being lease deed No.6852 and ultimately on 03.03.2021, i.e., during pendency of this appeal classified the said property as industrial commercial plot.–– Further, from a certificate of possession dated 10.7.1993 (additional paper book dated 04.11.2018, filed by the writ petitioner-respondent) we find supports that the possession of the land in question was handed over to the Public Works Department-3, on 18.01.1960 by the Additional Land Acquisition Office, Dhaka. Further, after getting lease the writ petitioner-respondent has mutated his name and has been paying rent to the Government regularly.–– Appellate Division have no other option but to agree with the above findings of this Division and this Division is also of the view that there is no scope to evict the writ petitioner-respondent by issuing a notice under section 5 of the Ordinance 24 of 1970. .....Bangladesh Railway =VS= Abdul Huq, (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 216] ....View Full Judgment

Building Construction Act, 1952
Section 3B, 7, 9, 15
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
Section 117 (1)(c)
Town Improvement Act, 1953
Sections 72, 185, 187 and 190
Government and Local Authority Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1970
Section 5
The High Court Division acted illegally in entering into the disputed questions of fact in ascertaining the quantum of land possessed by the writ petitioners and the appellants. RAJUK in its affidavit-in-opposition clearly stated that the writ petitioners constructed three buildings violating the lay out plan and they were served with notice. When the writ petitioners were asked by notices to stop the constructions on the ground that they were making constructions encroaching upon land of the Government, they instituted title suit No 324 of 1999. Since disputed questions of fact raised in the writ petition and since the writ petitioners had already instituted a Suit, this dispute could have been disposed of adequately in that suit. The writ petitioners had withdrawn their suit during the pendency of the writ petition and proceeded with the writ petition at their risk and peril. Appellate Division finds merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. The writ petitioners are not entitled to seek any relief from a court of law for their unauthorized acts. The High Court Division has totally ignored that aspect of the matter and given reliefs to the writ petitioners despite finding that they have constructed the buildings by encroaching upon the land of the Military Estate Department. In view of above, this Division finds merit in these appeals. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Md. Gias Uddin Chowdhury, (Civil), 2024(2) [17 LM (AD) 542] ....View Full Judgment