The property in question did not answer the description of an abandoned property within the meaning of article 2(1) of PO 16 of 1972 and the same did not vest in the Government and that the same was enlisted in the `Kha' list illegally and without lawful authority inasmuch as no notice for surrendering or taking over possession thereof as required under section 5(1)(b) of the Ordinance was served upon the occupants. (Per Md Abdul Wahhab, J, minority) Shahidul Haque Bhuiyan vs Chairman First Court of Settlement, 69 DLR (AD) 241

Undoubtedly, the Court of Settlement was within its jurisdiction in directing the respondent to produce the agreement and the lease deed before the said Court for the purpose of making decision on the question as to whether at the relevant time whereabouts of Mr SM Hasan were known and that he was in Bangladesh. Since those facts are in the negative i.e. Mr SM Hasan's whereabouts were not known and that he was not in Bangladesh, after emer­gence of Bangladesh and, as such, undoub­tedly the property in question on the promul­gation of PO 16 of 1972 assumed the character of abandoned building and in that background of the fact the property was legally listed in the list of abandoned buildings.
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh vs Abdul Walied Talukder 11 BLC (AD) 218.

The petitioner did not lead any evidence to substantiate his conten­tion as to non service of notice since it is not seen from the judgment of the Court of Settlement that any such contention was raised and the respondent made attempt to establish his claim of non-service of notice in listing the property as abandoned property. From the judgment of the Court of Settlement it is seen that the respondent miserably failed to establish before the said Court that the building in question is not an abandoned property.
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh vs Abdul Waned Talukder 11 BLC (AD) 218.

Suit for cancellation of document, declaration of decree not binding and recovery of khas possession–– It appears from the judgment and order of Court of Settlement that it opined that the property was wrongly included in the list of abandoned properties and Azizan Bibi and defendant No.1 can settle their dispute in competent Court. Since after execution and registration of sale deed dated 23.10.1979 Azizan Bibi lost her title to the suit land and that she failed to prove that the impugned deed was fraudulent one, Appellate Division is of the view that plaintiff Azizan Bibi has no title to the suit land, the High Court Division has committed an error of law in making the Rule absolute thereby decreeing the suit. .....Md. Kamal Hossain =VS= Abdul Ahad, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 513] ....View Full Judgment

The disputed property was declared as an abandoned property under P.O. 16 of 1972 as far back as in 1972, since when the property government is in possession thereof.
Proviso (a) to Section 5 contemplates a legally enforceable decree. The exparte decree obtained by the writ petitioner is a declaratory decree simpliciter without any prayer for recovery of possession, when, admittedly, the writ petitioner 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, 18 BLD (AD) 282.

The possession of the building in question was not taken over by the Government in view of the certificate issued by the Government and produced by the respondent not considered by the Court of Settlement, stating that the property was not an abandoned property as has been rightly found by the High Court Division and that the respondent successfully rebutted the persumption attached to the list published under section 5(1) of the Ordinance that the property is an abandoned property and vested in the Government but the contention that the respondent was owner of the building on the basis of civil court decree in a suit for specific performance of contract is no more tenable in law.
Bangladesh Vs Md. Shajahan, 20 BLD (AD) 166.
Ref: C.Q. M. H. Md. Ayub All Vs. Bangladesh and ors and Mrs. Laila Ahmed Vs. The Court of Settlement and ors. 47 DLR(AD)71; Government of Bangladesh Vs. Ashraf All, 46DLR(AD) 161—Cited.

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.
Govt. of Bangladesh and others Vs Bibi Marium and others, 21 BLD (AD) 89.
Ref: Fatema Begum vs. Bangladesh. 42DLR342; Bangladesh vs. Amela Khatun and ors, 53 DLR (AD) 55—relied.

Publication of list of buildings and presumption of correctness of the entries in the Gazette.
Section 5(2) of the Ordinance clearly provides that the list published under subsection (1) Shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that the buildings included therein are abandoned properties and have vested in the Government as such.
Govt. of Bangladesh vs. Md. Jalil and others, 15 BLD (AD) 175.

Once a building is included in the list of abandoned properties it is conclusive evidence that the building in question is an abandoned property where the owner either was not present in Bangladesh or his whereabouts were not known or he ceased to manage or occupy the property at the time when P.O. 16 of 1972 was promulgated on 16.2.1972. This presumption is, of course, a rebuttable one. It is for the claimant to show that the original owner was present in Bangladesh or his whereabouts were known or he did not cease to occupy or manage the property in question at the relevant time. Since the notification in the official gazette carries a presumption that the building in question is an abandoned property, it is exempt from any legal process be it an auction sale by the Govt. itself or through Court.
Rahima Begum and others Vs the Court of Settlement and others, 17 BLD (AD) 118.

All the deeds and transfers were collusively made after Po 16 of 1972 came into force and these transfers are hit by article 6 of PO 16 of 1972. (Per SK Sinha, CJ, majority) Shahidul Haque Bhuiyan vs Chairman First Court of Settlement, 69 DLR (AD) 241

In the present case the Petitioners or their vendor admittedly was not in possession of the property in question at the relevant time, they entered into the possession of the property in the year 1984. Since the property was declared abandoned under the provision of P.O. 16 of 1972, question of service of notice under Article 7 upon the Petitioner or their vendor who were not in possession, active control, supervision and management of the property at the relevant time does not arise. Moreover, decree in a Suit for Specific performance of contract does not reflect a substantive determination of any issue regarding the abandoned character of the property. ...Shahida Khatun & ors Vs. Chairman, 1st Court of Settlement & anr, (Civil), 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 93 ....View Full Judgment

The provisions for service of notice upon the occupant of an abandoned property as provided in article 7 of PO 16 of 1972 read with rule 3 of the Rules, 1972 has, in fact, been re-introduced and re-asserted in clause (b) of section 5(1) of the Ordinance as a precondition before enlistment of a bbuilding of which the Government is not in possessing and that notice for surrendering or taking over possession as abandoned property under PO 16 of 1972 had been served. (Per Md Abdul Wahhab, J, minority) Shahidul Haque Bhuiyan vs Chairman First Court of Settlement, 69 DLR (AD) 241

Persons claiming interest in listed abandoned buildings may apply to the Court of Settlement.
Section 7 of the Ordinance provides that a person claiming any right or interest in any such building may make an application to the Court of Settlement for exclusion of such building from such list on the ground that the building is not an abandoned one and it has not vested in the Government under P.O. No. 16 of 1972 or that his right or interest in the building has not been affected by the provision of that Order. The onus, therefore, is squarely on the claimant of the building to prove that the building is not an abandoned property. The Government is under no obligation either to deny the facts alleged by the claimant or to disclose the basis of treating the property as abandoned property.
Govt. of Bangladesh vs. Md. Jalil and others, 15 BLD (AD) 175.

Monthly tenancy right in the premises continues and remains unaffected when the land lord accepted the rents from the legal heirs after the death of the original tenant—
So long the tenancy is not terminated in accordance with law the tenancy right in the premises remains unaffected. The tenancy in the premises was created, by the Abandoned Property Authority as the Custodian thereof and the said authority accepted rents from the petitioner after the death of his father and as such the tenancy right continues as before even after transfer of the premises if any validly made under the new transferee. Jaimil Abedin Jamal Vs. Qais Hilda and others 11 MLR (2006) (AD) 116.

On the promulgation of the President's Order No. 16 of 1972 the property assumed the character of abandoned property and that as per provision of Article ]0 of the President's Order No. 16 of 1972 the property vested in the government and that possession of the property in question though claimed by the respondent No. 1, but as was not established was with him on 28-2-1972 when PO No. 16 of 1972 came into force and that as no material has been brought on record whereupon it can be said that the possession claimed by the respondent No. 1 is of the kind of possession as contemplated by the provision of section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, as such, possession of the respondent No. 1 of the property in question is not protected under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act.
Government of Bangladesh vs KM Zaker Hossain and others 8 BLC (AD) 27.

Once a property vests in the Government under PO No. 16 of 1972 no legal proceedings can be taken against such property.
Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Public Works and Urban Development vs Md Suruzzamal and others 48 DLR (AD) 1.

The High Court Division erred in law in holding that the trial Court considered the relevant documents and found prima facie title and possession of the plaintiffs in the suit land in spite of the fact that the plaintiffs neither in their plaint nor in their evidence claimed that they are in possession which is an initial essential ingredient for obtaining permanent injunction rather admitted possession of the Government and proforma-respondent No.8. The High Court Division came to conclusion that since the respondents were Bangladeshi so the property could not be abandoned under P.O.16 of 1972 without considering the aspect whether the suit was maintainable since it was not a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and since proforma-respondent No.8 in possession of the suit land since 1976. The suit is barred under Articles 14 and 15 of the Bangladesh Abandoned Property (Control, Management and Disposal) Order,1972 (P.O.No.16 of 1972) inasmuch as property vested in the Government under the said Order is exempted from all legal process and no injunction shall be granted or made by Court and that the High Court Division erred in law deciding the title of the plaintiffs in a case of permanent injunction when no suit has filed for declaration of title.
Joint Secretary, BCIC -Vs.- Dudu Miah 6 ALR (AD) 2015 (2)64