Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Bangladesh Abandoned Property (Control, Management and Disposal) Order [PO 16 of 1972] | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 2(1) |
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 |
Shahidul Haque Bhuiyan vs Chairman First Court of Settlement | 69 DLR (AD) 241 |
Section 2 |
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 |
Section 7(3) |
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 |
Section 5(2) |
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 |
Md. Kamal Hossain =VS= Abdul Ahad | 15 LM (AD) 513 |
Section 5 Proviso (a) |
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.
|
Bangladesh Vs Anwar Ahmed and others | 18 BLD (AD) 282 |
Section 5(1) |
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 |
Section—5(1) (b) |
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 |
Section 5(1) (2) |
Publication of list of buildings and presumption of correctness of the
entries in the Gazette.
|
Govt. of Bangladesh vs. Md. Jalil and others | 15 BLD (AD) 175 |
Section—5(2) |
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 |
Section 6 |
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 |
Shahidul Haque Bhuiyan vs Chairman First Court of Settlement | 69 DLR (AD) 241 |
Article 7 |
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 |
Shahida Khatun & ors Vs. Chairman, 1st Court of Settlement & anr | 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 93 |
Section 7 |
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 |
Shahidul Haque Bhuiyan vs Chairman First Court of Settlement | 69 DLR (AD) 241 |
Section 7 |
Persons claiming interest in listed abandoned buildings may apply to the
Court of Settlement.
|
Govt. of Bangladesh vs. Md. Jalil and others | 15 BLD (AD) 175 |
Section 10 |
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—
|
Jaimil Abedin Jamal Vs. Qais Hilda and others | 11 MLR (AD) 116 |
Section 10 |
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 |
Section 14 |
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 |
Articles 14 and 15 |
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) 64 |