Non utilization of the acquired land
Mere non-use of the acquired land for the purported propose for which it was acquired will not give any right to its previous owner to get return of the same. Once a property is validly acquired after meeting the legal formalities it vests in the Government and its previous owner does not have any right to ask return of the same for its non-utilization for the specific purpose for which it was acquired. Al-Haj Abul Basher being dead his heirs (a)Hosne-Ara Begum and others Vs Bangladesh and others, 17 BLD (AD) 321.

From the correspondences between the Government and the requiring body it is clear that the publication of the final notice in the Gazette under section 5(7) of the Act is in process. In the circumstances, the lawful order the High Court Division could pass under the law was to direct the appellants either to derequisition the case property under section 8B of the Act or to finally acquire the same by publishing in the Gazette a notification under section 5(7) of the Act. The High Court Division wrongly exceeded its jurisdiction in assuming the executive functions of the Government by officials directing release of the case property in favour of the writ petitioner.
Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others Vs Abdul Wahab Mia and others, 21 BLD (AD) 94.

For assessment of compensation for the acquired property the period of “24 months” shall be the period preceding the date of notice under section 5(1). But there should be some proximity between notice under Section 5(1) and the notice of final acquisition under Section 5(7) of the Act. Bangladesh Vs. Luxmi Bibi and others, 14 BLD (AD) 165.

Period of Limitation
The period of limitation for approaching the arbitrator under clause (aaa) of section 7 of the Act would be commuted from the date of receipt of the notice by awardee and not from the date of knowledge derived otherwise. Md. Abdul Majid Dana Vs Bangladesh, 19 BLD (AD) 12.

After finalization of the proceeding for acquisition and notification thereof in the Gazette the Additional Land Acquisition Officer was required to obtain the approval of the Government before issuing the notice of the assessment of the compensation in Form J under clause (aa) of Section 7 of the Act. But in the instant case the records shows that no step for obtaining the approval of the Government was taken in the case of appellant.
The sequence of events shows that the appellant made application before the Additional Land Acquisition Officer claiming compensation when he had no title and interest in the case lands. As the notice of the assessment was collusively procured and as such it cannot be considered a notice under section 7 (aa) of the Act. Accordingly the arbitration proceeding was, therefore, without jurisdiction. Md. Abdul Majid Dana Vs Bangladesh, 19 BLD (AD) 12.

There is no principle of law under which once a property has been validly acquired for a public purpose, as admitted by Government and has vested in the requiring body then even if the said property be utilized for a different purpose, the acquisition shall not stand void. A simple reading of section 8B of the Act shows that it does not come into operation in the circumstances of the case. So the order of withdrawal from acquisition in question cannot be sustained. Brahamanbaria Pourashava Vs Secretary, Ministry of Land Reforms, Government of Bangladesh and others, 19 BLD (AD) 87.

The Government’s choice to withdraw any property from acquisition as conferred by Section 8B of the Act must be exercised before the payment of compensation and not after it. Order of such withdrawal must be done by a notification published in the official gazette. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of L.A. & L.R. and others Vs. MIS. Commercial Trust of Bangladesh Ltd. and others, 14 BLD (AD) 72.