Martial Law Regulation No. VII of 1977
Articles 4 & 5—
The suit lands do not subscribe to the said definition to be declared as abandoned and the present suits do not come within the mischief of MLR No. VII of 1977 or under the aforesaid provision of the Schedule of the Constitution and the concerned President's Order. Sena Kalyan Sangstha vs Haji Sufi Fazal Ahmed 10 BLC (AD) 198.

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

MARTIAL LAW REGULATION NO. VIII of 1977
Article—5(2)
Abatement of suit or proceeding— Abatement of suit or proceeding when vesting or taking over of any property as abandoned property is not challenged whether legal— When there is no challenge to such vesting or taking over and the Government did not invoke the provisions of Article 5(2) of Martial Law Regulation No. VII of 1977 and even did not apply to the Court for recording abatement of the suit, the Court in recording suo motu order of abatement seems to have ‘roceeded arbitrarily. Asaduzzaman Vs. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Public Works and Urban Development, 4BLD (AD) 189

Review Forum—­
The recommendation of Review Committee or Review Forum is not binding upon the Government. In case of similar recommendation when one is reinstated in service while other of same footing is not, the Government has to show good reason; otherwise such an order is liable to be struck down being discriminatory on unequal treatment. Bangladesh Vs. A.K.M Al-Mamun and others 1, MLR (1996) (AD) 161.

Martial Law Regulation No. I of 1982
Regulation 18—
It is clear that the Chief Martial Law Administrator interfered with the awarding of sentence and imposed 3 sentences namely, imprisonment, fine and confiscation which the High Court Division rightly found to be not authorised by law when the confiscation has been affirmed in the later part of the order of Chief Martial Law Administrator the High Court Division found that this should be held to be without lawful authority. Bangladesh and another vs Feroz Mehedi 6 BLC (AD) 80.

Order No. 131 of 1986— Review—
The Martial Law Order No.9 of 1982 provided for review of the order passed thereunder. Subsequently Martial Law Order No. 131 of 1986 provided for review of the pending cases of review by Forum constituted thereunder. Once the order of compulsory retirement has been reviwed by the Chief Martial Law Administrator, there is no scope for review of the same for the second time under Martial Law Order No. 131 of 1986. Mustafizur Rahman Vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Establishment and others 4, MLR (1999) (AD) 16.