অর্পিত সম্পত্তি প্রত্যর্পণ আইন, ২০০১
Section-5(2), 6
Direction-(h), The Government may take necessary measures by enacting law in respect of properties which were vested to the Government and where institution have already been developed for the purpose of the development of the country may be named after the name of the original and lawful owner. Regarding direction-(h)-Appellate Division’s considered view is that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the legislature to enact a particular legislation. Same is true as regards the executive when it exercises the power to make Rules, which are in the nature of sub-ordinate legislation.
This Act i.e. Act of 2001 covered issue of compensation vide section-5(2) and proviso of section-6. The term ‘sufficient and just’ depends upon the criteria, location, etc. of the property which will be determined by the concern department of the Government. Relating to enactment of law, Appellate Division already expressed their views while discussing direction-(h) of the High Court Division. It appears that the Government enacted a law, Act of 2001 (Amended in 2013), to dealt with the vested properties fairly and reasonably in accordance with the law. As such, there is no necessity to issue directions upon the Government regarding the vested properties. .....Ministry of Land, Bangladesh =VS= Md. Abdul Hye, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 1] ....View Full Judgment

The Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 143 (1) (c) r/w
Arpito Shompotti Pratyarpan Ain, 2001
Section 9(6)
Permanent lease– The predecessor of the appellants are in possession of the homestead of Shachida Nanda Sarkar from the year 1960 and from the evidence it appears that such possession was not denied by the Government, respondent Nos.1-2. Since appellants and their predecessors are/were in possession of the homestead of Shachida Nanda Sarkar since long, Appellate Division is, therefore, of the view that the landed property belonged to the appellants i.e. homestead of Shachida Nanda Sarkar measuring 3(three) bighas, the appellants for ends of justice would be entitled to have permanent lease because the predecessors of the appellants were refugees to take shelter came from India. The lease money would be Tk.1,00,000/- (Taka one lac) only. .....Khandakar Nurul Islam(Md.) =VS= Deputy Commissioner, Panchagarh, (Civil), 2022(1) [12 LM (AD) 60] ....View Full Judgment

Since the matter is pending before the High Court Division, the petitioner is at liberty to file application for mutation of the suit land for paying rent before the appropriate authority within 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of the judgment. The High Court Division held that since the case is pending before the High Court Division and the said guideline “” is not mandatory and as such the parties has option to take initiative as per “” dated 04.11.2013 after obtaining the copy of this judgment. And the revenue authority should ignor the limitation as provided in the “পরিপত্র” dated 21.11.2013. Since the law clearly stated that the person who desire to obtain any relief should file case before the revenue authority and revenue authority after scrutiny of the documents file by the parties will take decision. Even as per provision of Sub-section 4 of Section 28 (Kha) any aggrieved party can take initiative to restore their right through the present law of the country. A.B.M. Mustafizur Rahman -Vs.- The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others (Civil) 2019 ALR (HCD) Online 122 ....View Full Judgment

Constitution of Bangladesh
Article 102 and 42 And
অর্পিত সম্পত্তি প্রত্যর্পণ আইন, 2001:
It is a settled proposition of law that an aggrieved party may invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution straightaway provided the action impugned is malafide, even though there may be an alternative remedy available for him. Since we have found that the inclusion of the case property in ‘Ka’ Schedule of the Gazette Notification dated 06.05.2012 as a vested property is malafide, the instant writ petition, as we see it, is maintainable. Besides, it has been clearly, categorically and unequivocally held in the decision in the case of the Government of Bangladesh represented by the Ministry of Works and another…Vs…Syed Chand Sultana and others reported in 51 DLR (AD) 24 that the writ-petitioners can come directly to the High Court Division for protection of their fundamental right, even though an alternative remedy is available. So our definite finding is that the petitioners can come directly to the High Court Division for protection of their right to property as contemplated by Article 42 of the Constitution of Bangladesh, even though an alternative forum, that is to say, অর্পিত সম্পত্তি প্রত্যর্পণ ট্রাইব্যুনাল is available for necessary legal redress. ...Manabendra Chakrabarty & ors Vs. Bangladesh & others, (Civil), 3 SCOB [2015] HCD 52 ....View Full Judgment