Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Emergency Requisition and Acquisition of the Property Act, 1948 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 2(111) |
The definition of land as given in the Act is not limited to land alone but it includes benefit arriving out of it and things attached to the earth. The compensation is to be assessed both for the movable and immovable properties. The land acquired does not mean the land simpliciter, but also includes benefit arising out of the land, things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything attached to the earth and, in that state of the matter, in assessing statutory compensation & 15% in respect of acquired land the arbitrator has not committed any error of law. Government of Bangladesh, represented by DC vs Anwara Huq 9 BLC (AD) 205. |
Government of Bangladesh, represented by DC vs Anwara Huq | 9 BLC (AD) 205 |
Sections 3 and 4(1) |
Notice for requisition and permanent acquisition of a property under the– · Act–An order of requisition is made under section 3 by the DC and section 4(1) provides for notice "on the owners of the property by delivering or tendering it to him," etc– It further provides for proclamation of the order by beat of drum in the locality in which the property is situate which contemplates a personal and public service of the order of requisition. Bangladesh vs Basharatullah 42 DLR (AD) 91. |
Bangladesh vs Basharatullah | 42 DLR (AD) 91 |
Sections 3 & 5 |
Mere non-use of the acquired land for the purpose for which it was acquired will not give anyright 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 nonutilisation for the specific purpose for which it was acquired. Abul Basher being dead his heirs Hosne Ara Begum and others vs Bangladesh and others 50 DLR (AD) 11. |
Abul Basher being dead his heirs Hosne Ara Begum and others vs Bangladesh and others | 50 DLR (AD) 11 |
Sections 3, 4, 5, 5A, 5(1a)(3), 7 and 14(A) |
Acquisition of property– Question of non–service of notice– Trial Court held that service of notice contemplated in section 5(la) and 5(3) of the Act must be prior to the intimation of the acquisition has been rendered invalid for the want of statutory notice, the service of notice which is posterior to the acquisition cannot legally have any retrospective effect and as such a subsequent fresh service of old notice cannot have any legal effect of legalising the illegal acquisition–Appellate Court concurred with the finding that the service of old notice under section 5(la) along with that under sub–section (3) of the Act on 23–4–73 upon the plaintiffs giving only 7 days' time to file objection was not valid and legal–Revisional Court did not interfere with the finding by holding that the absence of notice under section 5(Ia) and 5(3) was already decided in TS No.36/68. Bangladesh vs Basharatullah 42 DLR (AD) 91. |
Bangladesh vs Basharatullah | 42 DLR (AD) 91 |
Sections 3, 5(1) and 7(e) |
Whether the compensation should be assessed on the average value of land during the period of 24 months prior to the date of service of notice (14–4–1962) for acquisition under section 5(1) of the (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act– So far as the position of law is concerned, this is the exact position as specifically provided in clause (e) of the section 7 of the (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act. Abdul Gafur Khan vs Bangladesh 42 DLR (AD) 99. |
Abdul Gafur Khan vs Bangladesh | 42 DLR (AD) 99 |
Section 3 |
Requisition of property—To justify requisition for accommodation of
Government office a case of unavailability of alternative accommodation has
to be made out.
|
Mansurul Aziz and another Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Land Administration and Land Reforms and others; | 1 BLD (AD) 75 |
Section 3 |
Requisition of property
|
Mansurul Aziz and another Vs. Secretary, Ministiy of Land Administration and Land Reforms and others; | 1 BLD (AD) 75 |
Sections 3 and 5 |
Once a property is vested in the government after making acquisition
finally through publishing in the gazette, it is the Government who can
deal with the same in accordance with law, in any manner, whatsoever.
|
The Secretary, Ministry of Land, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna Dhaka and others. -Vs.- Md. Ameer Hossain and others | 10 ALR (AD) 332 |
Section 3 |
Requisition of Property –
|
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Dewan Fakhrul Alam | 6 LM (AD) 47 |
Section 4A(2) |
The facts of the present case are completely different. Save and except a view was taken that 44 decimals was derequisitioned, nothing further was done and no enquiry was either held as contemplated by Rule 10(2). Therefore, it cannot be said that any right had accrued to the appellant which should not be recalled. Amirul Islam vs Secretary, Ministry of Land Adm 40 DLR (AD) 52. |
Amirul Islam vs Secretary, Ministry of Land Adm | 40 DLR (AD) 52 |
Section 5(7) |
The contractor requested appellant No.3 to requisition the land for bricks manufacturing and thus the land was requisitioned in L.A. Case No.49/61-62 and it was handed over to the contractor. Thereafter, the Government acquired the land in 1967 but the contractor requested the appellants to transfer the acquired land in his favour and moved the appellants from time to time but to no avail. Being aggrieved, the respondents herein, Md. Iqbal Kamla and others, filed a writ petition before the High Court Division for direction upon the appellants herein to execute a deed and transfer the land acquired in L.A. Case No.49 of 1961-1962 in favour of the respondents herein. The relief sought in the writ petition can only be given by a competent civil Court in a suit for specific performance of contract and there is no scope for giving such a relief under the writ jurisdiction. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Iqbal Kamal, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 199] ....View Full Judgment |
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Iqbal Kamal | 4 LM (AD) 199 |
Section 5(7) |
This court noticed that the government initially requisitioned the land and thereafter acquisitioned the same by publishing a notice in the Official Gazette under section 5(7) of the Emergency Requisition of Property Act, 1948 and held that once the property is acquired and gazette notification is published under section 5(7) of the Emergency Requisition of Property Act, 1948, the right, title and interest if any of the owners are extinguished and preparation of Khatian or payment of rent does not improve the position of the original owners in respect of the acquired land. In the background of the case it was held by this court while dismissing the leave petition that mere non-use of the land for years will not give any right to the writ petitioner to have it released in his favour. In the case Bangladesh Vs. Nawab Abdul Malik Jute Mills, 12 MLR(AD) 183, the writ petitioner filed writ petition stating that the government acquired their land along with other land for the construction of Kanchpur Bridge along with approach road but a vast tract of land remained unulilized after construction of the bridge was complete and accordingly they were entitled to get back the unutilized land claiming that the same was liable to be derequisitioned in their favour. In Abul Bashar Vs. Bangladesh, 50 DLR(AD)11 the writ petitioners filed writ petition to get back their unutilized land challenging the requisition and subsequent acquisition of their land for creating residential plots by the Chittagong Development Authority (CDA). .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= M.A. Razzaque, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 196] ....View Full Judgment |
Government of Bangladesh =VS= M.A. Razzaque | 4 LM (AD) 196 |
Section 5(7) |
Final Gazette Notification under section 5(7) of the Emergency Requisition
of Property Act, 1948 in respect of the suit premises and as such the
right, title and interest if any of the previous owner had extinguished and
the property absolutely vested in the Government–
|
Ministry of Agricultural =VS= Rabia Khatoon | 5 LM (AD) 377 |
Section 5 (7) |
It is an admitted fact that the suit land was acquired in L.A. Case No. 06 of 1948-49 and although steps have been taken for release of the land from acquisition, the applicants have not succeeded in getting the land released. According to section 5 (7) of the (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948 the land having been duly acquired and compensation paid, it vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Hence, the title in the property is no longer with the petitioner. We note from the plaint that the petitioner has not included any prayer for declaration of title and hence, in any event, the prayer for temporary injunction is not sustainable. .....Imtiaz Faruque(Md.) =VS= Afsarunnessa Khatun, (Civil), 2017 (2)– [3 LM (AD) 232] ....View Full Judgment |
Imtiaz Faruque(Md.) =VS= Afsarunnessa Khatun | 3 LM (AD) 232 |
Section 5(7) |
The notification of the final acquisition of the said suit property in the
official gazette has been delayed
|
Govt: of Bangladesh & Ors Vs. Rabia Khatoon Ors | 17 BLT (AD) 339 |
Section 5(1A) (3) |
Service of notice in respect of requisition of land for public purposes is mandatory requirement of law. When such notice is served upon the owner of the land there is no need to serve the same afresh upon the subsequent transferee of the land. Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Land vs Abul Hossain and others 51 DLR (AD) 25. |
Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Land vs Abul Hossain and others | 51 DLR (AD) 25 |
Section 5(1A) (3) |
Review may be granted only for sufficient grounds akin to those of Order XLVII, rule I of the Code. To permit a review on the ground claimed by the petitioners will amount to rehearing of the matter and our sitting on appeal over our own judgment which is not permissible in law. Abul Hossain and 3 others vs Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land and others 51 DLR (AD) 116 |
Abul Hossain and 3 others vs Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Land and others | 51 DLR (AD) 116 |
Section 5(3) |
Time for answering notice—15 days time limit for answering a personal notice relating to acquisition of property when not strictly necessary—Notice was served on the plaintiff on 23.4.73 requiring them to appear on 30.4.73—Admittedly, the gazette notification on the acquisition was made on 25.6.73 about 2 months after the said notice—In the circumstances it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have been deprived of a reasonable opportunity to appear due to shortage of time. Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka and others Vs. Basharatullah being dead his heirs and successors: Fade Karimn and others; 10BLD (AD) 110 |
Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhaka and others Vs. Basharatullah being dead his heirs and successors: Fade Karimn and others; | 10 BLD (AD) 110 |
Section 5, 8 |
If the property is not acquired under section 5 then only release from requisition may be prayed for under section 8 of the Act, 1948– The High Court Division observed that the Enquiry Committee formed by the Deputy Commissioner reported that the land was not used for the purpose for which it was requisitioned, and it recommended for de-requisition of the case property and accordingly directed the property to be de-requisitioned and released. ...Government of Bangladesh =VS= Meherunnessa, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 1] ....View Full Judgment |
Government of Bangladesh =VS= Meherunnessa | 10 LM (AD) 1 |
Section 5(7) |
The Government can acquire any property following legal procedures and upon
payment of compensation. In the facts of the instant case, it appears that
all due procedures were followed up to the service of notice under Section
5(7) of the Act, 1948. Affected persons had the opportunity to file
objections under section 4 of the Act, 1948. However, the writ petitioner,
who did not have title to the property nor was in possession, could not
have lodged any objection. Nevertheless, when he is able to obtain
validation of the exchange documents and thereby gains title to the
property in dispute, he shall have a right to receive compensation.
|
Deputy Commissioner, Jashore =VS= Md. Abu Reza | 10 LM (AD) 35 |
Sections 5(7), 14A |
Appellate Division opinion, section 14A of the (Emergency) Requisition of
Property Act has, in clear and unmistakable terms put an express embargo on
entertainment of any suit or application against any order or action under
the Act. Not only this, if any suit or appeal was pending from before the
enactment of this section (this section was inserted by E.P. Ordinance
No.XIII of 1963) against any order or action under the Act it was to
abate.
|
BADC, Dhaka =VS= Md. Shahidullah | 10 LM (AD) 248 |
Section 5 (7) |
It is an admitted fact that the suit land was acquired in L.A. Case No. 06 of 1948-49 and although steps have been taken for release of the land from acquisition, the applicants have not succeeded in getting the land released. According to section 5 (7) of the (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948 the land having been duly acquired and compensation paid, it vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances. Hence, the title in the property is no longer with the petitioner. We note from the plaint that the petitioner has not included any prayer for declaration of title and hence, in any event, the prayer for temporary injunction is not sustainable. …Md. Imtiaz Faruque Vs Afsarunnessa Khatun Chowdhury & ors, (Civil), 7 SCOB [2016] AD 46 ....View Full Judgment |
Md. Imtiaz Faruque Vs Afsarunnessa Khatun Chowdhury & ors | 7 SCOB [2016] AD 46 |
Section 5(7) |
Release of requisition land– Under sub-section 7 of section 5 of the
(Emergency) Requisition of the Property Act, 1948 Gazette Notification has
already been published on 18.06.1998, however, the learned Judges of the
High Court Division have failed to appreciate that legal point while
passing the impugned judgment.
|
Bangladesh Water Development Board =VS= Alhaz Mohammad Kamal | 9 LM (AD) 297 |
Section 7(e) |
Statutory provision of law is section 7(c) of the Act in respect of
determination of compensation.
|
Abdul Gafar Khan vs Bangladesh | 42 DLR (AD) 99 |
Section 7(f) & Rule 9(6) |
Appeal against final award before the High Court Division– Appellate Court is not empowered to condone the delay of time–barred appeals under section 5 of the Limitation Act in view of clear provision of section 29(2) which excludes application of section 5. Ishaque vs Bangladesh 43 DLR (AD) 28. |
Ishaque vs Bangladesh | 43 DLR (AD) 28 |
Section 7(e) |
Computation of compensation for acquisition of land—Period of twenty four months whether to precede the date of notice for acquisition or actual date of acquisition— Average value of the land during twenty four months preceding the date of notice of acquisition rather than the date of actual acquisition of land is to be taken in computing compensation—The date of acquisition is immaterial for the purpose of determining the value of the land acquired—When value of the land was increasing but that of money was decreasing the compensation to be paid now on the valuation of the year 1962 would cause substantial injury to the land owner—There should be some proximity between the date of notice for acquisition and that of actual acquisition. Abdul Gafur Khan and another Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others; 4 BLD (AD) 283 |
Abdul Gafur Khan and another Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others | 4 BLD (AD) 283 |
Section 8B |
In a de-requisitioned proceeding of a requisitioned property before delivery of possession was taken by the requisitioning authority, the delivery of possession of the released property is not necessary to make the order of release effective -We find substance in the submissions of the learned Deputy Attorney General that the survey report dated 02.06.1988 Annexure-E, order sheet of Miscellaneous Case No.2 of 1993 Annexure-J, order for depositing money Anenexure-F and the release order Annexure-D have not been properly considered in the review case. We also find substance in her submission that possession of the writ petitioner's requisitioned property had not been taken over by the authority and the same had been derequisitioned at the initial stage under section 8B of the (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948. Govt: of Bangladesh & Ors Vs. Mr. Sultana Ferdous Ara Khanam 17 BLT (AD) 118. |
Govt: of Bangladesh & Ors Vs. Mr. Sultana Ferdous Ara Khanam | 17 BLT (AD) 118 |
Section 8B |
After compensation is paid for acquisition of land no order can be made for derequisition of such acquired land. Bangladesh vs Commercial Trust of Bangladesh Ltd. 46 DLR (AD) 89. |
Bangladesh vs Commercial Trust of Bangladesh Ltd. | 46 DLR (AD) 89 |
Section 8B |
Once a property has been validly acquired for a public purpose, then even if the property be utilised for a different purpose, the acquisition shall not stand void. Brahmanbaria Pourashava vs Secretary, Ministry of Land Reforms, Government of Bangladesh and others 51 DLR (AD) 84. |
Brahmanbaria Pourashava vs Secretary, Ministry of Land Reforms, Government of Bangladesh and others | 51 DLR (AD) 84 |
Section 8B |
The requisitioned land is not liable to be released even if it remains unutilised by the requiring body. Ali Ahmed and others vs Government of Bangladesh and other 55 DLR (AD) 92. |
Ali Ahmed and others vs Government of Bangladesh and other | 55 DLR (AD) 92 |
Section 8 |
Release of property from requisition—
|
Janata Housing Ltd. represented by its Managing Director Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Land, Gout, of Bangladesh & others | 4 MLR (AD) 403 |
Section 8B |
Original owners should get unused acquired land by way of lease at present
market price and not by any strangers– Inter-Ministerial correspondence
does not create any right as held in the case of Al-Haj Abul Basher Vs.
Bangladesh (1998) 50 DLR (AD)11 but in this case the decision on the
Inter-Ministerial meeting was communicated to the writ-petitioner and,
therefore, it cannot be said that no right was created.
|
Ministry of Land, Bangladesh =VS= Mosammat Sharifun Nesa | 8 LM (AD) 89 |
Section 14A, 83 |
Original owners prior to acquisition received compensation–
|
AKM Shamsudoha =VS= Md. Yusuf Ali Mondal | 5 LM (AD) 400 |
Section 14A |
Bar of suit–There was no question of the authorities acting without
jurisdiction or acting in a manner without following the procedure provided
for in the statute –The bar of the suit under section 14A of the Act is
inexorably attracted to this and it must be held that the suit itself was
barred.
|
Bangladesh vs Basharatullah | 42 DLR (AD) 91 |
Section 14A |
Section imposes an express bar on the entertainment of any suit or appeal against any order or action taken under the Act. An appeal pending against such an action or order shall abate. Nur Muhammad vs Mainuddin 39 DLR (AD) 1. |
Nur Muhammad vs Mainuddin | 39 DLR (AD) 1 |
Section 14A |
Jurisdiction—Ouster of jurisdiction of the Civil Court—When lack of competence of the requisition authority or non—conformity with the provisions of the Act or violation of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure is not in question ouster clause of the jurisdiction of the civil court in the Act cannot he avoided—Section 14A of the Emergency Requisition of Property Act in clear and unmistakable terms put an express embargo on entertainment of suits or application against any order or action under the Act—Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(V of 1908), S. 9. Nur Muhammad and others Vs. Moulvi Mainuddin Ahmned and others; 6BLD (AD) 342 |
Nur Muhammad and others Vs. Moulvi Mainuddin Ahmned and others; | 6 BLD (AD) 342 |
Section 14A |
Civil Court shall not entertain any suit or application against an order
passed or any action taken under (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act
and all suits and appeals pending in any Court against any order passed or
taken under this Act shall abate from the date of coming into force of the
Emergency) Requisition of Property (Amendment) Ordinance, 1963.
|
Bangladesh Railway. -Vs.- Md. Sujaruddin and others | 12 ALR (AD) 87 |