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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Requisition of property—To justify requisition for accommodation of Government office a case of unavailability of alternative accommodation has to be made out.
Accommodation to a Government office is no doubt a public purpose—but to justify such an order a case is to be made out that alternative accommodation is not available and it is essentially required for providing accommodation to the Government Office. Mansurul Aziz and another Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Land Administration and Land Reforms and others; 1BLD (AD)75

Requisition of property
The order of requisition should contain the description of the Government Officer or the Government Office for whom the property is requisitioned. Mansurul Aziz and another Vs. Secretary, Ministiy of Land Administration and Land Reforms and others; 1BLD (AD) 75

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 Appellate Division held that when a property is validly requisitioned and acquisitioned under the law and finally published in the gazette, which is done after completion of all formalities including payment of compensation, the property vests absolutely on the government. None, under such circumstances, can claim any right not to speak after nearly 40 years of acquisition to get their property back on the plea of non-utilization of the same.
The Secretary, Ministry of Land, Bangladesh Secretariat, Ramna Dhaka and others. -Vs.- Md. Ameer Hossain and others. (Civil) 10 ALR (AD) 332-336

Requisition of Property –
It is crystal clear that once a property is acquired and vested in the Government after making payment of compensation there is no scope to release the same to the original owner or to his heirs. ...Government of Bangladesh =VS= Dewan Fakhrul Alam, (Civil), 2019 (1) [6 LM (AD) 47] ....View Full Judgment

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.

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

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

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–
Gazette Notification dated 18th March, 1993 of the Ministry of Land in respect of the suit premises (at page 110 of the paper book) and submitted that final Gazette Notification under section 5(7) of the Emergency Requisition of Property Act, 1948 in respect of the suit premises has already been made on 18th March, 1993 and as such the right, title and interest if any of the previous owner had extinguished and the property absolutely vested in the Government. Facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that final Gazette Notification under section 5(7) of the Emergency Requisition of Property Act, 1948 had already been made in 1993. In our view the judgment of the High Court Division requires interference by us. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs. .....Ministry of Agricultural =VS= Rabia Khatoon, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 377] ....View Full Judgment

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

The notification of the final acquisition of the said suit property in the official gazette has been delayed
Final gazette Notification under section 5(7) of the Emergency Requisition of Property Act, 1948 in respect of the suit premises has already been made on 18lh March, 1993 and as such the right, title and interest if any of the previous owner had extinguished and the property absolutely vested in the Government as contended by the learned Deputy Attorney General -Held; In the facts circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that final Gazette Notification under section 5(7) of the Emergency Requisition of Property Act, 1948 had already been made in 1993. In our view the judgment of the High Court Division requires interference by us. Govt: of Bangladesh & Ors Vs. Rabia Khatoon Ors 17 BLT (AD) 339.

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.

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

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

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

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.
In the impugned judgement the High Court Division had given a direction upon the writ respondents to reopen the exchange case. Fourteen years have elapsed, and no steps have been taken in this regard. The appellant is directed to comply with the direction of the High Court Division within six months from receipt of this judgement. In the event that the respondents herein are successful in proving their title to the property in question they shall get compensation in accordance with law. ...Deputy Commissioner, Jashore =VS= Md. Abu Reza, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 35] ....View Full Judgment

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.
Gazette notification has been published in respect of the suit property along with other properties on 25.06.1973 prior to filing of the suit. According to the spirit of section 5(7) of the Act, the properties so acquired shall vest in the Government free from all encumbrances. Therefore, the Government is at liberty to lease it out to anybody whomever it likes.
The unused suit property was also utilized for public purpose and the Government is at liberty to do so since the disputed property and other properties vested in it pursuant to the gazette notification dated 26.06.1973 in L.A. Case No.30 of 1958-1959. Accordingly, this civil appeal is allowed without any order as to costs. ...BADC, Dhaka =VS= Md. Shahidullah, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 248] ....View Full Judgment

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

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.
The person or authority making proposal or promise must have power to carry out the proposal or promise, herein no such proposal by the appropriate authority. So, no representation can be enforced which is prohibited by law.
We find that the learned Judges of the High Court Division have failed to appreciate the meaning of the Inter- Ministerial Communication treating the same as promise and thereby directed the respondents to release the acquired land.
View that the learned Judges of the High Court Division have exceeded its jurisdiction in assuming the executive functions of the officials directing release of the case property. Thus, we are inclined to set aside the judgment of the High Court Division without granting leave. The judgment and order of the High Court Division is set aside. ...Bangladesh Water Development Board =VS= Alhaz Mohammad Kamal, (Civil), 2020 [9 LM (AD) 297] ....View Full Judgment

Statutory provision of law is section 7(c) of the Act in respect of determination of compensation.
When the Arbitrator fixed the compensation at Taka 20,000 per acre taking the average between 1961 and 1968, Government did not file any appeal but accepted the award– Though notice for acquisition under section 5(a) was served in 1962 the land was actually acquired in 1968 after the expiry of 6 years when the value of the land increased to a great extent– There should be some proximity between the date of notice for acquisition and that of actual acquisition–Assessment made by the High Court Division at Taka 30,000 per acre has met the ends of justice. Abdul Gafar Khan vs Bangladesh 42 DLR (AD) 99.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Release of property from requisition—
­Unless acquired under section 5(7) of the Emergency Requisition and Acquisition of Property Act, 1948 the question of return of the property in question is a case of release of the property from requisition under section 8 of the Act. Janata Housing Ltd. represented by its Managing Director Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Land, Gout, of Bangladesh & others 4, MLR (1999) (AD) 403.

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.
In the Inter-Ministerial meeting decision was taken to lease out the unused land to the original owners at present market price. The decision taken by the Inter-Ministerial meeting does not contravene any of the provision relating to the acquisition of immoveable property.
We are inclined to dispose of the appeal and direct the appellants to lease out the disputed land to the respondents or their legal representatives, as the case may be, at present market price subject to proof of their genuine title. The Government is also directed to evict all authorized occupants from the disputed land and hand over possession of the same to the respondents or their legal representatives, as the case may be, within 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. …Ministry of Land, Bangladesh =VS= Mosammat Sharifun Nesa, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 89] ....View Full Judgment

Original owners prior to acquisition received compensation–
The suit plots having been initially requisitioned and put the requiring body into possession and subsequently the same was acquired in L.A. case No.174/60-61 and the plaintiffs’ predecessors, the original owners prior to acquisition received compensation on 03.01.1962 and thereafter handed over possession on 23.09.1962 to the requiring body, namely, Narua Bahumukhi Samabaya Samity Limited on which defendants constructed their godown, the High Court Division acted illegally in not holding that the suit is barred under Section 83 of Emergency Requisition of Property Act. Furthermore, the Suit land having been admittedly recorded in the name of the requiring body who has been in possession since 25.09.1962 and the records of right having been corrected in their names have the presumption of continuity in possession, the Court below erred in law in not decreeing the suit of permanent injunction and ought to have held that the suit land, the possession having been handed over the Samabaya Bank on 23.09.1962 upon taking delivery of the same from the plaintiff predecessors lawfully, the suit is barred under Section 14A of the Emergency Requisition of Property Act, 1948. .....AKM Shamsudoha =VS= Md. Yusuf Ali Mondal, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 400] ....View Full Judgment

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.
Compensation– though not in issue in the suit is at the centre of all the litigations being carried on from 1963–Fresh notice will have a direct bearing on the determination of compensa­tion–But now that a whole decade has passed between public notice under section 5(1a) dated 14–12–60 and the publication of the Gazette under section 5(7) of the Act, the matter or compensa­tion assumes great importance because of the phenomenal rise in the value of the land since 1960–the observation in an earlier case that there should be some proximity between the date of notice for acquisition and that of actual acquisition is to be taken into consideration while determining the compensation. Bangladesh vs Basharatullah 42 DLR (AD) 91.

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.

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

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.
The Appellate Division held that on the date of filing of the suit in the year 1990, section 14A of the (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948 was in existence. Therefore, the suit was barred under section 14A of the (Emergency) Requisition of Property Act, 1948. Having gone through the record, we find that P.W.1 in his evidence, admitted that his father and uncle obtained compensation on account of acquisition on 25.10.1960. If no compensation was paid in respect of .34 acre of land as shown in the schedule to the plaint, the plaintiff can claim compensation from the Government but he cannot file a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant and others. As soon as gazette notification was published the suit land shall be deemed to have been vested absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances and as such, the plaintiff is not en¬titled to file a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the appellant and others from dispossessing him from the suit land till payment of compensation and allotment of rehabilitation plot.
Bangladesh Railway. -Vs.- Md. Sujaruddin and others. (Civil) 12 ALR (AD) 87-90