Since no notice for surrendering possession of the property was issued, it can hardly be said that the property has been lawfully included in the list of abandoned buildings. Nurul Hoque vs Bangladesh 46 DLR 601.

The Abandoned Buildings (Supplementary Provisions) Ordinance, 1985
Section 5(1)(b) And
Article 7 of P.O. 16 of 1972:
The Government- Respondent never issued and served any notice upon the owner and the occupier under Article 7 of P.O. 16 of 1972 or under Section 5(1)(b) of the Ordinance, 1985. Non-service of notice as required by law disentitled the Government-Respondent to claim that the property was legally declared abandoned and enlisted in the “Kha” list of the Abandoned Buildings. It is also noted that there is nothing on record to show that the Petitioner was ever asked to show cause about inclusion of the property or to surrender the same which has definitely denied the right of natural justice to the Petitioner. ...Shamsun Nahar Begum Shelly Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 5 SCOB [2015] HCD 67 ....View Full Judgment

Since the property has been listed under Section 5(1) of the Ordinance as abandoned property and the said list has been published in the official gazette the claimant of the property are required to dislodge the statutory presumption as under Section 5 (2) of the Ordinance that the property in question is not an abandoned property and the same has been wrongly enlisted. ...Shahida Khatun & ors Vs. Chairman, 1st Court of Settlement & anr, (Civil), 8 SCOB [2016] HCD 93 ....View Full Judgment

Abandoned Buildings (Supplementary Provisions) Ordinance, 1985:
Section 5(1)(a)
It is clear from the wordings of Section 5(1)(a) of the Abandoned Buildings (Supplementary provisions) Ordinance, 1985 that the Government must take possession of the property in question; this is a mandatory precondition for inclusion of a property in the list of abandoned property under Section 5(1)(a) of the 1985 Ordinance. This is also the consistent view of both Divisions of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. The Hon’ble Appellate Division, in the case of Marzina Khatun vs Bangladesh [13 BLC (AD) 140] took the view that in certain circumstances, actual possession is not necessary; constructive possession would suffice. ...Md. Lutfor Rahman & ors. Vs. Bangladesh & ors., (Civil), 15 SCOB [2021] HCD 21

This Division is of the view that in case of dispute, the Government must show that the possession of property has been taken by it. The onus is upon the Government because the Government has the relevant documents which would prove that it has taken possession. In the instant case, land tax had been paid by the predecessor of the petitioners prior to inclusion of the property in the Bangladesh Gazette. This prima facie show that the Government did not take possession of the property in question. It also noted that RAJUK issued permission for construction of multistoried building over the property in question. Therefore, there is a presumption of possession in favour of the petitioners and their predecessors. Now, the issue is whether the respondent No.1 provided any documents to controvert the presumption of possession in favour of the petitioners. In the Affidavit in Opposition, the respondent No.1 did not annex any document(s) which show that the Government took possession of the property in question. The respondent No.1 did not even make such assertion. We are therefore, inclined to hold that the petitioner has prima facie satisfied this Division of the continued possession of the property in question. ...Md. Lutfor Rahman & ors. Vs. Bangladesh & ors., (Civil), 15 SCOB [2021] HCD 21

The settled position of law is that two legislations dealing with the same subject matter should be interpreted harmoniously. ...Md. Lutfor Rahman & ors. Vs. Bangladesh & ors., (Civil), 15 SCOB [2021] HCD 21 ....View Full Judgment

Abandoned Buildings (Supplementary Provisions) Ordinance, 1985
Section 5(1)(a) and
Order 7 and 18 of P.O 16 of 1972:
Section 5(1)(a) of the 1985 Ordinance is attracted if and only if the Government took possession of the property. So the attributable interpretation is that Section 5(1)(a) of the 1985 Ordinance can be applied if the possession has been taken by the Government under Order 7 of P.O. 1972. Order 18 of P.O. 16 of 1972 provides that the Government shall maintain a separate account for each abandoned property. P.O. 16 of 1972 also provides that Government shall impose fine on tress passers on abandoned property. In respect of the property in question, the respondents failed to show that the Government took possession in accordance with the provisions of P.O. 16 of 1972. The respondents also failed to show the account for the property in question. If the predecessors of the petitioners were infact unlawfully occupying the property in question, then the Government would have proceeded against them. No such evidence was shown. To the contrary, the petitioners have annexed documents which suggest that even in 1979, the predecessor of the petitioners was the owner on record of the property in question; even in 1979 the Government received land tax from the predecessor of the petitioners. Therefore, the only logical conclusion that this Division has arrived is that the property in question is not an abandoned property and the property was erroneously included in the impugned Gazette. ...Md. Lutfor Rahman & ors. Vs. Bangladesh & ors., (Civil), 15 SCOB [2021] HCD 21 ....View Full Judgment

The application under sub-section (1) of section 7 shall contain the particulars as stipulated in Sub –section (1) of section 8 and also shall be accompanied by all the documents or the Photostat or true copies, as stipulated in Sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Ordinance No. LIV of 1985. In both the Sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 8 of the said Ordinance, the word ‘shall’ has been used i.e. “shall contain” and “shall be accompanied. So the particulars in sub-section (i) and documents as per sub-section (2) of section 8 of the Ordinance are the essential condition in making an application under sub-section (1) of section 7 of the said Ordinance. Without any of the said particulars and documents, it is not possible to file an application under section 7 of the said Ordinance. ...Mrs. Sitara Siddiq Vs Bangladesh & ors., (Civil), 5 SCOB [2015] HCD 57 ....View Full Judgment

Court of Settlement shall consist of a Chairman and two other members who shall be appointed by the Government. Secretary, Ministry of Public Works vs Court of Settlement (I st Court) Bangladesh Abandoned Building 51 DLR 396.

In our view, the petitioner had rightly approached the Court of Settlement, Dhaka for releasing the property in question from the Kha list of Abandoned Buildings. However, as his case was found to be barred by limitation and since he had no other equally efficacious remedy to enforce his rights, the petitioner was entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction. ...Abdul Jalil Biswas Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 3 SCOB [2015] HCD 47 ....View Full Judgment