Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 2(f), 13/8 (l)(b)/ 8(1) (f), 3,44,28 |
The writ-petitioner is entitled to get compensation for the manchinery and industries and shifting costs. Additional Director (Admin) vs. Md. Soke I Hossain Ibne Batuta (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 5 ADC 920 |
Additional Director (Admin) vs. Md. Soke I Hossain Ibne Batuta | 5 ADC 920 |
Section 3 and 6 |
When a proceeding is initiated for acquisition of some lands acquired for public purpose and in public interest and when notices under sections 3 and 6 were served and no objection as to specification or indefiniteness of the property was raised before the acquisition authority after the notices under the aforesaid provisions of law were served, such objection cannot be raised before any authority, subsequently, including the High Court Division' as has been decided in the case of Mizanur Rahman Vs. DC Mymensingh (7 BLC (AD) 17). The impugned judgment of the High Court Division it appears that a sketch map prepared by the authority as mentioned earlier, was filed and the High Court Division took notice of it but did not rely upon it because of its illegibility. That means the High Court Division took notice of this specification made in the sketch map but made the Rule absolute without taking the same into consideration in its true perspective which appears to be palpably erroneous. This civil appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court Division is set aside. …Power Grid Company of Bangladesh Ltd. =VS= Rowshan Ara Begum, (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 69] ....View Full Judgment |
Power Grid Company of Bangladesh Ltd. =VS= Rowshan Ara Begum | 7 LM (AD) 69 |
Section 3 |
We issue a writ and direct that the decision of the respondent Nos.1-3 in revoking the order of acquisition of land located at East Pahartali appertaining to B.S. Plot Nos.152 and 153 under police station Khulshi, Chittagong by memo dated 31st May, 2006 and the memos dated 22nd December, 2005 and 18th May, 2006 are declared to have been issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The respondent Nos.1-3 are hereby directed to proceed with the acquisition proceedings in accordance with law. However, we would like to observe that the acquisition notice should be issued upon the USTC which has already purchased the disputed land in question and is entitled to the compensation. .....Mohammad Zafar Iqbal =VS= Ministry of Liberation War Affairs, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 402] ....View Full Judgment |
Mohammad Zafar Iqbal =VS= Ministry of Liberation War Affairs | 3 LM (AD) 402 |
Section 3 & 4 |
Public interest–
|
Mrinalendu Paul =VS= Divisional Commissioner, Chittagong Division | 4 LM (AD) 277 |
Sections 3, 6 |
Private property could only be exercised for acquisition of land for public purpose or in public interest–– Notices under sections 3 and 6 had already been served–– The High Court Division observed that the acquisition proceeding had already been completed and the land in question vested in the requiring body and that the petitioners neither had any right, title or interest over the land nor it could demand re-grant of the land as a matter of right. The High Court Division noted that the power conferred by the Ordinance for acquisition of private property could only be exercised for acquisition of land for public purpose or in public interest and such land should be taken in general interest of the community as opposed to particular interest of some individuals. The High Court Division came to a finding that the purpose of acquisition of the land in question was for public purpose and as such, no interference was called for. .....Sentry Security Services Ltd. =VS= Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 181] ....View Full Judgment |
Sentry Security Services Ltd. =VS= Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka | 14 LM (AD) 181 |
Sections 3, 15 |
lands had earlier been acquired by the Government for the purpose of construction of Dhaka-Chittagong Highway and thereafter only the case plots are left to them and they rent to develop the same for the purpose of setting up industry on these lands. M/S. Mollah Industrial Estate vs. Khawja Mohammad Arifullah (M.M. RUHUL AM IN C.J ) (Civil) 6 ADC 493 |
M/S. Mollah Industrial Estate vs. Khawja Mohammad Arifullah | 6 ADC 493 |
Sections 3 and 8(Ka) |
The Arbitrator has fixed compensation at the rate of Tk. 15 lakh per acre taking the average of the sale price of the land in the vicinity and determined the compensation at a reasonable amount which is at least about 3 times less than the sale figure of 5 sale deeds in the vicinity of the acquired land by the petitioner together with compensation at the rate of 20% upon the value of the sale deeds and with additional compensation at the rate of 10% till the amount is paid or offered for payment. Bangladesh Small & Cottage Industries Corporation vs Kazi Nazimuddin 15 BLC (AD) 210. |
Bangladesh Small & Cottage Industries Corporation vs Kazi Nazimuddin | 15 BLC (AD) 210 |
Sections 3 and 4 |
The objection raised in the facts of the case is merely technical and does not touch upon the genuineness of the requirement which is obviously of an immediate nature. It is on record that the petitioner filed successive objections for consideration. There being a consideration by the acquiring authority the impugned judgment need not be interfered. Zahed Hossain Mia vs Deputy Commissioner 50 DLR (AD) 15. |
Zahed Hossain Mia vs Deputy Commissioner | 50 DLR (AD) 15 |
Sections 3, 6, 7 and 11 |
Acquisition process when reaches its finality— Government can exclude any
land from acquisition— Court has no such power—
|
Ameena Ahmed Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land and others | 13 MLR (AD) 176 |
Section 3 and 4 |
Acquisition for public purpose— Scope of interference—
|
Zahed Hossain Mia Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Chittagong and others | 3 MLR (AD) 135 |
Section 3 |
Acquisition of immovable property for public purpose— Service of notice-
Constitutionality of—
|
Abdus Salam Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land Administration and Land Reforms & others | 5 MLR (AD) 184 |
Section 3 |
Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982
|
Mohammad Zafar Iqbal & ors Vs. Bangladesh & ors | 9 SCOB [2017] AD 25 |
Section 3 |
Merely entries of the predecessors of the plaintiffs in the S.A and R.S. Khatians without any documents of title or ownership did not create of the respondents-plaintiffs title over the suit land– Said S.A. and R.S. records of right were published in the name of the previous owners from whom through L.A. Case No.48 of 1966-67, the land in question was acquired. Appellate Division is, therefore, of the considered view that such record of rights neither established the right title of the previous owners or their heirs upon the suit properties, because of acquisition of the said property. This Division finds that the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division do call for interference. .....Deputy Commissioner, Natore =VS= Most. Majeda Beowa, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 129] ....View Full Judgment |
Deputy Commissioner, Natore =VS= Most. Majeda Beowa | 12 LM (AD) 129 |
Sections 3, 7(3), 10 |
Payment of compensation of acquired land is not maintainable through with petition– Appellate Division is of the view that the writ-petition in respect of payment of compensation of acquired land is not maintainable and thus the judgment passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.3891 of 2015 is hereby set aside. The respondent-writ petitioners are not precluded from taking steps to get their compensation in accordance with law. The Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal is disposed of. ...Government of Bangladesh =VS= Md. Hadisur Rahman, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 83] ....View Full Judgment |
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Md. Hadisur Rahman | 11 LM (AD) 83 |
Section 4(b) and 5 |
Whether the requiring body had paid the amount within one year of the said
date is a matter between the Government and the requiring body. It is not
the case of the petitioner that he was not paid compensation or that his
compensation money was not deposited within one year from the date of
decision to acquire under section 5 or the proviso to section 4(3)(b) of
the Ordinance. As such he has no business to enquire when the requiring
body paid the amount of compensation to the Government.
|
Md. Alauddin Khandker Vs Government of Bangladesh | 20 BLD (AD) 147 |
Sections 5,12,15 |
So, the decision of the High Court Division is based on the fact that the award for compensation was made on 8th April, 1991 and as the compensation money having been deposited by Rabi-tat on 12th December, 1991 within one year from the date of award for compensation, the deposit was made in time, the proceedings not abated. This finding is based on misconception of law, inasmuch as, the High Court Division made the above observation on the basis of the substituted section 12 of the Ordinance, which provision would not be applicable in the said writ petitions. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing objection approved the proposal of the Land Acquisition Officer under section 5 of the Ordinance by order dated 17th July, 1990. The earlier writ petitions were filed in 1992. In the premises, it is the unamended provisions of Section 12 would hold the field but the High Court Division wrongly considered the amended provision . Dr. Malik Mehdi Kabir vs. Rabitat-Al-Alam-Al-Islami (S.K. Sinha J) (Civil) 8 ADC 652 |
Dr. Malik Mehdi Kabir vs. Rabitat-Al-Alam-Al-Islami | 8 ADC 652 |
Section 6 and 11 |
Acquisition of land for public purpose becomes final and the land so
acquired vests in the Government after notification published in the
official Gazette under section 11 of the Ordinance—Writ petition filed
long after the acquisition is not maintainable—
|
M/S Mallah Industrial Estate and Government of Bangladesh and others Vs. Khaivja Mohammad Arifullah and others | 14 MLR (AD) 265 |
Sections 7(4) and 12(l) |
Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982 (Amended
by Act XX of 1994)
|
Ministry of Land, Bangladesh =VS= Khorshed Alam Khan | 10 LM (AD) 15 |
Sections 7 and 8 (d) and (f) |
Constitution of Bangladesh
|
Md. Abdul Mannan Miah. -Vs.- Bangladesh, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Land and others | 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 151 |
Section 7(3) |
Writ respondent/appellant No.l, the requiring body in possession of the land in question having not been made a party in the present writ petition, the judgment and order passed therein suffers from error of law and further the High Court Division was also not justified in directing the writ respondent/appellant Nos.2-4 to release the land in question as the appellant No.l, the requiring body, after getting possession of the acquired land made construction therein spending substantial amount thereby leaving no scope for them to return of the land in question to the respondent No.l and further, notice under section 3 of the Ordinance No. 11 of 1982 is not required to be served personally on the owners of the acquired land. Chittagong Dock Sramik Parichalana Board vs. Shamsul Haque (Md. Tafazzul Islam) Civil 5 ADC 143 |
Chittagong Dock Sramik Parichalana Board vs. Shamsul Haque | 5 ADC 143 |
Section 8B |
Release of Property on de-requisition—
|
Khalilur Rahman being dead his heirs Abdur Rahman and others Vs. Executive Engineer, Roads and Higliwai/s and others | 14 MLR (AD) 27 |
Sections 10 and 12 |
The provision of section 12 will come into play only when the compensation
is not paid or not kept in deposit account under section 10(1). Under
section 12 no obligation as such is placed on the requiring body to deposit
compensation within six months from the date of decision for acquisition.
|
Bangladesh vs Subash Chandra Das | 46 DLR (AD) 63 |
Sections 10 and 12 |
Payment of compensation and abatement or revocation of the acquisition
proceeding for non-payment or non-deposit of compensation.
|
Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land Administration Vs. Subash Chandra Das and others | 15 BLD (AD) 17 |
Section 12 |
As soon as one year period expired from the date of final decision
regarding acquisition if the requiring body fails to deposit compensation
money the acquisition proceedings will automatically terminate. There is
natural death of the acquisition proceedings and after its natural death,
there is no scope to revive this proceedings.
|
Dr. Malik Mehdi Kabir: Md. Shahidullah Bhuiyan and others: -Vs.- Rabitat-Al-Alam-Al-Islami and others | 11 ALR (AD) 68 |
Section 12 |
When the requiring body can be asked to deposit the compensation money and
when abatement or revocation of Acquisition Proceedings takes place.
|
Bangladesh Vs. Subash Chandra Das & Ors | 2 BLT (AD) 30 |
Section 12 |
(a) Requisite fund not being placed by the requiring body within time, the
acquisition proceeding abated under section 12 (1) of the Ordinance with
effect from 18-12-84 by a Gazette notification dated 13.1.55 and a fresh
L.A. proceeding bearing the same number was started once again in respect
of the case land. The appellant claimed Tk. 1,50,00,000 as compensation
under section 12 (3) of the Ordinance as damages suffered by the owner
consequent upon the abatement of the L.A. proceeding. Although the
Arbitrator awarded a sum of Tk. 6,50,000/- in partial acceptance of the
claim, the Arbitration Appellate Tribunal (District-Judge) disallowed this
claim rightly on the ground that the provisions of section 12 (3) of the
Ordinance are applicable only in a case of simple abatement of acquisition
and not in a case when abatement is followed by a further proceeding for
acquisition of the same land. [Para-4]
|
Khaled Akter Vs. Bangladesh | 2 BLT (AD) 59 |
Section 12 |
The question of abatement under section 12 of the Ordinance is not relevant in as much as there was no averment in the Writ Petition that no compensation was paid under sub-section (I) of section IO or deposit made in the Public Account of the Republic as per provision of subsection (2) of section 10. Subash Chandra Das & ors. vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land Administration and Land Reforms, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh and others 50 DLR (AD) 106. |
Subash Chandra Das & ors. vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land Administration and Land Reforms, Bangladesh and others | 50 DLR (AD) 106 |
Section 12 |
Non-payment of compensation within one year from the date of decision of the Government for acquisition ofland as contemplated under section 12 of 1982 Ordinance does not render such land liable to be released in that section 12 is riot applicable to the facts of the instant cases which were started long before the Ordinance came into force in view of the provision of amended section 79 of the 1953 Act as no retrospectivity can be read into section 12 of the 1982 Ordinance. Jamir Ali (Md) and others vs Secretary, Ministry of Land & others 52 DLR (AD) 176. |
Jamir Ali (Md) and others vs Secretary, Ministry of Land & others | 52 DLR (AD) 176 |
Section 12 |
Abatement of an acquisition proceeding
|
Subash Chandra Das and others Vs Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land Administration and Land Reforms, Bangladesh and others | 16 BLD (AD) 119 |
Section 12 |
Abatement of acquisition proceedings—
|
Alauddin Khandoker (Md) Vs. Government of Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land and others | 4 MLR (AD) 387 |
Section 17 Sub-Section I |
Sub-Section I of Section 17 of the Ordinance provides that no property acquired by the Government shall, without prior approval of the Government, be used for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was acquired. The Ordinance coming into force on 13.4.82 and having not being given retrospective operation, cannot hit the contract earlier concluded with the Plaintiff. Pronab Kumar Chakraborty and Others Vs. The Govt. of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh and others, 14 BLD (HCD) 2 |
Pronab Kumar Chakraborty and Others Vs. The Govt. of the Peoples Republic of Bangladesh and others, | 14 BLD (HCD) 2 |
Section 27,31 |
When a person whose land was acquired and the Deputy Commissioner awards compensation for said acquired land files a revision award case that itself can sufficiently be considered that the affected person did not accept the award made by the Deputy Commissioner as correct and thereupon having been aggrieved filed the revision award case, in that state of the matter it cannot be said that money awarded by the Deputy Commissioner for the acquired land was received by the affected persons without protest. Deputy Commissioner vs Abdur Rahman (Md. Ruhul Amin J)(Civil) 3 ADC 232 |
Deputy Commissioner vs Abdur Rahman | 3 ADC 232 |
Section 28 |
Arbitration in matters of preliminary assessment of compensation—
|
Dhaka City Corporation represented by its Mayor Vs. Abdus Salam, District Judge & Arbitration Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka | 4 MLR (AD) 399 |
Section 28 |
Compensation reassessment at the prevailing market rate—
|
Bangladesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Khulna Vs. Mrs. Sayera Khatun and others | 4 MLR (AD) 180 |
Section 31 |
Arbitration revision case is maintainable not-withstanding the awardee
having received , the compensation money—
|
Government of Bangladesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner Dhaka and another Vs. Abdur Rahman and others | 11 MLR (AD) 233 |
Sections 32(3), 34 and 36 |
It is clear that the Arbitrator is a Civil Court for a limited purpose as enumerated in section 36 of the Ordinance and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the Arbitrator is a Civil Court for all purposes, although in section 32(3) it has been provided that every award passed by the Arbitrator shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of every such award a judgment within the meaning of section 2(2) and section 2(9) respectively of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for substantive right of review by the aggrieved party and Order XLVII, CPC provides for the procedure. The mere fact that in section 32(3) of the Ordinance it has been said that the award shall be deemed to be a decree and the statement of the grounds of such award a judgment within meaning of section 2(2) and section 2(9) respectively of the Code of Civil Procedure it will not confer any substantive right of review on the petitioner in the absence of any specific provisions for review in the Ordinance. Atiq Ullah vs Bangladesh 13 BLC (AD) 31. |
Atiq Ullah vs Bangladesh | 13 BLC (AD) 31 |
Section 34(3) |
Whether a revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable in respect of the judgment passed by the Arbitration Appellate Tribunal. In view of the decision reported in 38 DLR (AD) 172 Member Appellate Tribunal in deciding the appeal over the decision of the Arbitrator exercised a judicial function and as such he is a Court and for that matter his decision is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction. Khaled Akbar vs Government of Bangladesh 42 DLR 66. |
Khaled Akbar vs Government of Bangladesh | 42 DLR 66 |
Section 36 |
An arbitrator is deemed to be a civil court for limited purpose. As such
arbitrator can not review its award in exercise of power under Order 47
rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908—
|
Atiqullah (Md.) Vs. Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh represented by Land Acquisition Collector and others | 12 MLR (AD) 41 |
Sections 43 and 44 |
Exclusion of jurisdiction of a civil Court should not be readily inferred. If the order passed or action taken by any authority is malafide, such court shall have jurisdiction to entertain a suit to see whether the action is in conformity with the law in question. Soleman Bibi and ors. vs ·Administrator, Farajikandi Complex and ors 45 DLR 727. |
Soleman Bibi and ors. vs ·Administrator, Farajikandi Complex and ors. | 45 DLR 727 |
Section 44 |
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
|
ADC (L.A.), Khulna =VS= Md. Kayem Ali | 15 LM (AD) 493 |
Section 44 |
Acquisition and Requisition of the Immovable of the Property Ordinance,
1982
|
Bhawal Raj Court of Wards Estate =VS= Nahar Haider Nannu | 13 LM (AD) 506 |
Section 44 |
Ousts the jurisdiction of court in matters of acquisition of immovable
property—
|
Rajdhani Unnayan Kartipakha Vs. Abdul Jakir and others | 11 MLR (AD) 332 |
Section 44 |
Embargo against all legal proceedings.
|
Rajdhani Unnayan Kartipakha (RAJUK) -Vs.- Jonab Ali being dead his heirs | 2 ALR (AD) 57 |
Section 46 |
Provides for framing Rules for carrying out the purpose of the law—
|
Land Acquisition officer, Pubna and others Vs. Alhaj Md. Abdul Latif Biswas and another | 15 MLR (AD) 81 |
Section 47 |
Mutation, Water Development Board, the (Emergency) Requisition of Property
Act, 1948, Deputy Commissioner, cancellation of mutation, repealed,
স্হাবর সম্পত্তি অধিগ্রহণ ও
হুকুম দখল আইন, ২০১৭ (The Act, 2017), valid
acquisition, acquisition of the property:
|
East West Property Development (Pvt.) Ltd. & anr. Vs. D.C Manikgonj | 13 SCOB [2020] HCD 40 |
Section 47 |
The provision give life to all proceedings and matters including all notices, notifications and orders relating to requisition and acquisition of any property under the (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948 "as if that Act had not ceased." Abdul Bashar (Alhaj), being dead his legal heirs (a) Hosne Ara Begum & others vs Bangladesh and others 48 DLR 553. |
Abdul Bashar (Alhaj), being dead his legal heirs (a) Hosne Ara Begum & others vs Bangladesh and others | 48 DLR 553 |
Additional compensation |
Additional compensation in respect of the Government khas land– High Court Division stayed operation of the impugned Memo dated 28.04.1999 so far as it relates to additional compensation of 50% of the market value in respect of the Government khas land of 1749.6810 acres out of total land of 2492.3573 acres on condition that the petitioner would furnish a Bank guarantee for the said total amount of additional compensation in respect of the government khas land. Writ petition (appellants herein) has therefore been fully satisfied and the Board of Governors of Bangladesh Export Processing Zone has decided in its 16th meeting to publish necessary gazette notification. Hence, the appeal has become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed. We are of the view that the appeal has become infructuous and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Korean EPZ Corporation (BD) Ltd, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 194] ....View Full Judgment |
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Korean EPZ Corporation (BD) Ltd. | 4 LM (AD) 194 |
Additional compensation of Govt. khas land– |
Additional compensation in respect of the Government khas land–
|
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Korean EPZ Corporation (BD) Ltd. | 4 LM (AD) 194 |