Section 5(2), 6
|
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
|
Ministry of Land, Bangladesh =VS= Md. Abdul Hye |
12 LM (AD) 1 |
Section 9(6)
|
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
|
Khandakar Nurul Islam(Md.) =VS= Deputy Commissioner, Panchagarh |
12 LM (AD) 60 |
Section 28 (ka)
|
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
|
A.B.M. Mustafizur Rahman -Vs.- The Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others |
2019 ALR (HCD) Online 122 |
অর্পিত সম্পত্তি প্রত্যর্পণ আইন-
|
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
|
Manabendra Chakrabarty & ors Vs. Bangladesh & others |
3 SCOB [2015] HCD 52 |