Property in respect of which no claim is made for a specified and reasonable time by the true owner.
When the alleged owner of the property was not in Bangladesh during the relevant period, his whereabouts were not known and he ceased to occupy, supervise or manage the property in question, such a property easily comes within the definition of abandoned property. …..(Bangladesh vs. Md. Suruzzamal and others, 15 BLD (AD) 146)
The onus is firmly rested on the Government to prove that the property in question is an abandoned property. …..(Mrs. Akhtar Jahan Begum Vs. The court of Settlement Bangladesh Abandoned Buildings and others, 13 BLD (HCD) 177)
The onus is on the claimant of the building to prove that the building is not an abandoned property. The Government has no obligation either to deny the facts alleged by the claimant or to disclose the basis of treating the property as abandoned property.—The Abandoned Buildings (Supplementary Provisions) Ordinance 1985 (LIV of 1985), sections 5 and 7. …..(Government of Bangladesh vs. Md. Jalil and others, 16 BLD (AD) 21)
See, the Bangladesh Abandoned Property (Control, Management and Disposal) Order 1972 (P.O. No. 16 of 1972), the Abandoned Buildings (Supplementary Provisions) Ordinance 1985 (Ordinance No. LIV of 1985).

Abandoned property–
The High Court Division only could interfere with the finding of the Court of Settlement, if could be shown that the tribunal had acted without jurisdiction or made findings upon no evidence or without considering any material evidence causing prejudice to a party or it had acted malafide or in violation of any principle of natural justice. The High Court Division has failed to appreciate any such lacking in the judgment of Settlement Court. …Murtuza Shah(Md.) =VS= Ataharul Haque, (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 158] ....View Full Judgment

Abandoned property–
The disputed property was enlisted in the ‘Ka’ list of the abandoned properties so it is to be presumed that the same was enlisted rightly and the Government has been possessing the same. The onus is upon the writ petitioner to prove that the same is not an abandoned property.
The materials on record, it is apparent that writ petitioner Md. Tarique Sultan never appeared before the Court and those three persons namely, (1)Rashed Zahid, (2)Firoza Begom and (3) Shamsun Nahar, creating some documents, attempted to get the disputed valuable property released
Facts clearly questioned the identity of the writ petitioner. Though the papers produced in the High Court Division were highly doubtful, the High Court Division, ignoring those aspects, erroneously believing the papers released the property, in question. The civil for leave to appeal is disposed of. …Ministry of Works, Bangladesh =VS= Tariq Sultan(Md.), (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 200] ....View Full Judgment

Abandoned property–
The High Court Division found that the certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the competent authority proved that the property is not an abandoned property. The High Court Division observed that the Government did not file any affidavit-in-opposition controverting the statements made in the writ petition and, as such, it could safely be presumed that the appellants had accepted the statements made in the writ petition.
The Court of Settlement held that there was no evidence whatsoever oral or documentary to prove the oral gift by Mr Dossani in favour of Mrs Gulbanu on 1-7-1962. In order to prove the oral gift, the writ-petitioner filed an affidavit sworn by Mr Dossani on 13-10-1971 (Annexure-D to the writ petition). Having gone through the affidavit, we find that this affidavit was sworn before a Magistrate at Karachi, Pakistan then an enemy country at war with Bangladesh. There is no explanation for the long gap of 9 years between the alleged oral gift and the affidavit.
The findings arrived at and the decision made by the Court of Settlement have been based on proper appreciation of materials on record.
But the findings and decision made by the High Court Division having not been based on proper appreciation of materials on record call for interference.
We find substance in this civil appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed without any order as to costs and the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court Division is set aside and the judgment and order passed by the Court of Settlement is restored. …Ministry of Works, Bangladesh =VS= Abdul Mannan(Md), (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 323] ....View Full Judgment

Abandoned property– In the judgment of the High Court Division it is apparent that it’s clearly misconstrued and misread the relevant law i.e. the provisions of P.O. No.16 of 1972 because property in question was abandoned first in 1972 as owner Mr. Raisat was untraceable from 25th March 1971, after liberation he never took possession, control and manage the property. He also never claimed this property and, as such, the property in question was vested in the Government under Article 4 of the P.O. No.16 of 1972. Thereafter, Gazette dated 23.09.86 vide Ordinance No.LIV of 1985 the property was vested as an abandoned property in the Government. As per provisions of Article 5(2) of the Ordinance No.LIV of 1985 such vesting shall be the conclusive evidence of the fact that buildings included therein are abandoned property. ...Ministry of Housing and Works, Bangladesh =VS= Ala Box, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 83] ....View Full Judgment

Abandoned properties– The respondents filed the writ petition challenging the judgment and order passed by the Court of Settlement and the High Court Division issued Rule under Article 102 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. So, it appears that the writ petition was filed to challenge the propriety of the judgment and order of the First Court of Settlement, Dhaka and in the instant case, the High Court Division interfered with the findings of facts of the Court of Settlement in exercising the power of writ jurisdiction not being the appellate authority. We do not find any illegality in the judgment and order passed by the High Court Division. ...First Court of Settlement, Dhaka =VS= Mrs Tahera Begum, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 134] ....View Full Judgment

Abandoned property–
36 DLR (AD) 146, that once a Property vests in the Government under Presidents Order No.16 of 1972 no legal proceedings can be taken against such property– In a mortgage the stipulations are to be settled between the mortgagor and mortgagee, the Government has no function in the private mortgage deed, so, the issue to be decided in a such suit for foreclosure between the mortgagor and mortgagee, whether, mortgage is genuine, and stipulations of the mortgage was proved or not, so, even if, in the suit the Government is defendant nothing has to be decided against the Government, in the suit for foreclosure, such a decree in law is not binding upon the Government for the enlisted abandoned property. However, the High Court Division has missed the point as discussed. Therefore, by dint of ex-parte decree in the instant foreclosure suit the writ petitioner did not acquire any right and title in the case property. The judgment of the High Court Division is hereby set aside. ...Ministry of Housing and Works, BD =VS= Md. Shafiqullah, (Civil), 2021(1) [10 LM (AD) 62] ....View Full Judgment