Details |
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
|