Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)



Abandoned Property Matter
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation Head Note Parties Name Reference/Citation
Abandoned building–

Abandoned building–
The High Court Division in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot sit as a court of appeal over the judgement of the Court of Settlement for re-settling the questions of fact. In that case also the Court of Settlement on consideration of the materials on record arrived at a finding that the petitioner in that case was not the daughter and heir of the original lessee and that she had not been in possession of the house in question at the relevant time. The respondent failed to prove her claim to be the heir of the original allottee and also that the building was unlawfully declared abandoned. She could not prove that she was in possession of the building. The Court of Settlement, having called the relevant records for the building in question, came to a finding that the building was in the possession of the Government and declared it as having been lawfully declared as abandoned property. We find merit in the appeal, which is accordingly allowed, without however, any order as to costs. The impugned judgement and order of the High Court Division is set aside. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Musammat Amikun, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 1] ....View Full Judgment

Government of Bangladesh =VS= Musammat Amikun 5 LM (AD) 1
Abandoned property–

Abandoned property–
The disputed property was enlisted in the ‘Ka’ list of the abandoned properties so it is to be presumed that the same was enlisted rightly and the Government has been possessing the same. The onus is upon the writ petitioner to prove that the same is not an abandoned property.
The materials on record, it is apparent that writ petitioner Md. Tarique Sultan never appeared before the Court and those three persons namely, (1)Rashed Zahid, (2)Firoza Begom and (3) Shamsun Nahar, creating some documents, attempted to get the disputed valuable property released
Facts clearly questioned the identity of the writ petitioner. Though the papers produced in the High Court Division were highly doubtful, the High Court Division, ignoring those aspects, erroneously believing the papers released the property, in question. The civil for leave to appeal is disposed of. …Ministry of Works, Bangladesh =VS= Tariq Sultan(Md.), (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 200] ....View Full Judgment

Ministry of Works, Bangladesh =VS= Tariq Sultan(Md.) 7 LM (AD) 200
Abandoned property–

Abandoned property–
The High Court Division only could interfere with the finding of the Court of Settlement, if could be shown that the tribunal had acted without jurisdiction or made findings upon no evidence or without considering any material evidence causing prejudice to a party or it had acted malafide or in violation of any principle of natural justice. The High Court Division has failed to appreciate any such lacking in the judgment of Settlement Court. …Murtuza Shah(Md.) =VS= Ataharul Haque, (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 158] ....View Full Judgment

Murtuza Shah(Md.) =VS= Ataharul Haque 7 LM (AD) 158
Abandoned property–

Abandoned property–
The High Court Division found that the certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the competent authority proved that the property is not an abandoned property. The High Court Division observed that the Government did not file any affidavit-in-opposition controverting the statements made in the writ petition and, as such, it could safely be presumed that the appellants had accepted the statements made in the writ petition.
The Court of Settlement held that there was no evidence whatsoever oral or documentary to prove the oral gift by Mr Dossani in favour of Mrs Gulbanu on 1-7-1962. In order to prove the oral gift, the writ-petitioner filed an affidavit sworn by Mr Dossani on 13-10-1971 (Annexure-D to the writ petition). Having gone through the affidavit, we find that this affidavit was sworn before a Magistrate at Karachi, Pakistan then an enemy country at war with Bangladesh. There is no explanation for the long gap of 9 years between the alleged oral gift and the affidavit.
The findings arrived at and the decision made by the Court of Settlement have been based on proper appreciation of materials on record.
But the findings and decision made by the High Court Division having not been based on proper appreciation of materials on record call for interference.
We find substance in this civil appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed without any order as to costs and the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court Division is set aside and the judgment and order passed by the Court of Settlement is restored. …Ministry of Works, Bangladesh =VS= Abdul Mannan(Md), (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 323] ....View Full Judgment

Ministry of Works, Bangladesh =VS= Abdul Mannan(Md) 7 LM (AD) 323