Emergency Requisition of Property Act (XIII of 1948)
Assessment of compensation
Sections 3 and 5(1) of the Emergency Requisition of Property Act, 1948: Ownership of the requisitioned property does not vested on the Government or requiring body with the requisition under Section 3 of the Act. But it remains with the original owner till gazette notification under Section 5(1) of the Act. The assessment of compensation of the property by the Deputy Commissioner will have to be made with reference to the market value of the acquired land on the date of acquisition and not the date of requisition. (Para-26, Mr. Justice Md. Jahangir Hossain). 21 BLC 276: Mozlema Khatun & others Vs. Government of Bangladesh & another: Ref: 13 DLR 528, 14 DLR 486, 19 DLR 237, 29 DLR(SC)110, 55 DLR 264.
Section 3
Subsequently Joydebpur Cantonment was shifted too Rajendrapur and conse- quently the possession of the remaining land was handed over to the Deputy Commissioner by the order of the au- thority dated 20.06.1979. No notice ei- ther under section 5(1)(a) or section 5(3) of the said Act was served nor no- tice under section 5(7) of the said Act was published in the official Gazettee and compensation in respect of the said land was paid. A.S.M.Anayetullah vs. Bangladesh represented by the Secre- tary (Md. Joynul Abedin J) (Civil)6 ADC 309
The (Emergency) Requisition Property Act, 1948
Seeking a direction upon the writ respondent No.1 for execution and regis- tration of an exchange deed in respect of 18 decimals of land of S.A. Khatian No.193 of Plot Nos.5/645, under Mouja Bejpara, Police Station Kotwali, Dis- trict-Jessore in favour of the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner vs. Md. Abu Taher (S.K. Sinha J) (Civil) 8 ADC 23
Section 5
The appellate court affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court holding the same view that since the plaintiff purchased the suit land from the original owner before acquisition of the same by the Government the plaintiff acquired right and title in the suit land and he had also been possessing the same. Against this judgment of the appellate court the appellant filed the above mentioned Civil Revision No. 1606 of 2001 and obtained the Rule. A Single Bench of the High Court Division, on hearing the learned Advocate for the appellant-petitioner and considering the facts and circumstances and relevant laws, made the Rule absolute making observations to the effect that the suit land was admittedly acquired by the Government by gazette notification and holding that "once a property is acquired and Gazette Notification is published under Section 5(7) of the Emergency Requisition of Property Act, the right, title and interest, if any, of the owners are extinguished". Md. Bande Ali Miah vs. Chief Engineer, Housing and Settlement (Naz- mun Ara Sultana J) (Civil) 8 ADC 604
Section 5(7)
Section 5(7) of the said Act provide that "on and from the beginning of the day on which the notice is so published the requisitioned property shall vest absolutely in the government free from all encumbrances". Section 14A imposes an express bar on the entertainment of any suit against any order passed or any action taken under the said Act. On consideration of these provisions of law, the judgment and order of the High Court Division and the judgment of this Division, we find merit in the contention of the learned Attorney General. Leave is. therefore, granted to consider on additional grounds as under. Government of Bangladesh vs. Mohammad Alamgir Hossain (S.K. Sinha J) (Civil) 8 ADC 702
High Court Division in disposing of the Rule in Civil Revision No. 2036 of 2005 directing the Secretary, Ministry of Works, to arrange alternative land in the same quantum for the opposite parties and till such arrangement is made to allow the opposite parties to remain in the suit Plot. Bashaboo Girls High School vs. Sharafunnessa (Shah Abu Nayeem Mominur Rahman J) (Civil) 8 ADC 498
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, [10 LM (AD) 1]
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, [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, [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 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, [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 =VS= Faruque (Md.) Afsarunnessa Khatun, [3 LM (AD) 232]
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.
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, [9 LM (AD) 297]
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.
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, [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.
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, [10 LM (AD) 248]
Section 8B- Original owners should get unused acquired land by way of lease at present market price and not by any strangers- Inter-Ministerial corres- pondence 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, [8 LM (AD) 89]
The (Emergency) Requisition of the
Property Act, 1948
Section 14(A)
Declaration of title, recovery of Khas
possession of the suit land, permanent injunction and for some other relief on
the averment that a piece of land. M/S Haque's bay vs. Mrs. Jahanara Ahmed (Md.
Joynal Abedin JCivil) 5 ADC 409
The petitioner has field Civil Petition
for leave to appeal with the prayer for staying the order of the High Court
Division dated November 18,2007. Anti-Corruption Commissioner vs. Fazlur Rahman
and others(Civil) 5ADC 411
Jurisdiction of Civil Court under Section 14A and 83
Sections 14A and 83 of the Emergency Requisition of Property Act, 1948: In view of the admitted facts that 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, 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 deliver of the same from the plaintiff predecessors lawfully, the suit is barred under Section 14A of the Emergency Requisition of property Act, 1948. (Para-10, Mr. Justice Mohammad Fazlul Karim). 6 ALR(AD)(2)73: AKM Shamsudoha Vs. Md. Yusuf Ali Mondal & others
The Emergency Requisition Act, 1948
Section 8B
The Ministry passed the impugned order
for derequisition "for avoiding legal complication". Legal
complication has not been explained or elaborated in the impugned order. It
appears that soon after the order of derequisition dated July 20, 1983, the
owner got the land back and transferred the same to different persons. Whatever may be the legal complication there, it was the appellants' own seeking.
The order of derequisition was passed in violation of Section 8B of the
Emergency Requisition Act, 1948. After Compensation is paid for acquisition of
land no order can be made for derequisition of such acquired land. Apart from
the violation of Section 8B of the Act the impugned order also suffers from
another infirmity. The impugned order was passed by the Ministry without giving
any hearing to respondent No.1. The apellants' contention that respondent No.1
was given a hearing during on-the spot-enquiry by the Deputy Land Reforms
Commissioner will not be a sufficient compliance of the principle of natural
justice, because the impugned order was passed not by the Deputy Land
Commissioner, but the Ministry. Respondent No. I did not get any opportunity to
place his case and his views on the enquiry report of the Deputy Land Reforms
Commissioner. Bangladesh represented by the Secretary Ministry of L.A. &
L.R. and ors vs. M/S. Commercial Trust of Bangladesh Ltd. and ors (M.H. Rahman
J) (Civil) 4ADC 331
The (Emergency) Requisition of Property
Act, 1948
Directing the writ-Respondents to
release the land of the writ-petitioners upon demarcating the same and to handover
possession of the land within 4 months from the date of receipt of the copy of
the judgment and in case of fail- ure on the part of the authority the writ-
petitioners would be at liberty to take appropriate legal action against the
writ- Respondents. Chairman, T&T Boar vs Md. Rafiqur Gaznavi (Md. Ruhul
Amin J)(Civil) 5 ADC 826
The Emergency Requisition of Property
Act, (XIII of 1948)
Section 3, 5(7).
Acquisition and Requisition of
Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982 (Ordinance No. II of 1982). Declaration of
her title in respect of the compensation money.
A bonafide mistake as to the quantity
of land in the Gazette notification of August 11, 1983 the said mistake was
corrected by the subsequent Gazette Notification. Government vs Most. Nurjahan
Begum (Md. Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 3 ADC 205
Section 3
From whichever angle the question is
considered, we are firmly of the view that the date of correction or amendment
of the decree under section 152 cannot be the starting point of limitation for
the purpose of filing an appeal against the decree. Bangladesh Luxmi Bibi
(Shahabuddin Ahmed C JX(Civil) 2ADC 843
The Emergency Requisition of Property
Act (XVI of 1948)
Section 5
There should be some proximity between
the requisition notice of acquisition and of actual acquisition, in the facts
and circumstances of the instant case that no step has yet been taken for
acquisition of the land on publication of the notification under section 5(7)
of the Act, we direct the authority to take immediate steps to that effect and
assess the compensation at present market value. Rajshahi Development Authority
vs Sultan Ahmed (Mohammad Fazlul Karim J) (Civil) 2ADC 738
The Emergency Requisition of Property
Act, (XII of 1948)
Section 5(7)
The judgment of the High Court Division
being based on wrong and incorrect presumption i.e. the land in suit has been
acquired by the Government and thereby vested in the Government and the fact of
non-acquisition having been established by the Memo. dated 22.11.2003 written
by the Deputy Commissioner, the finding of the High Court Division that because
of vesting of the land in suit upon acquisition by the Government the
plaintiffs did not acquire any right, title and interest in the land in suit is
not legally sustainable. Nurun Nabi Mullah vs Abdul Karim alias M.A. Karim (Md.
Ruhul Amin J)(Civil) 2ADC 326
The (Emergency) Requisition of property
Act, 1948 (Act 13 of 1948)
Section 5(7)
In case authorities take decision to
requisition and acquire the land of the writ- petitioners then the authority
would be competent to do the same in accordance with the provision of the law
relating to the matter of acquisition and requisition of land in force.
Chairman, T&T Board VS Md. Rafiqur Gaznavi(2) (Md. Ruhul Amin J (Civil) 3
ADC 197
The Emergency Requisition of Property Act (XIII of 1948)
Section 8B
The Govt's choice to withdraw any
property from acquisition as conferred by section 8B of the Act must be exercised
before the payment of compensation and not after it. The second limitation is
that such order of withdrawal must be done by a notification published in
official gazette. Bangladesh & L. R. VS M/S. Commercial Trust of Bangladesh
ors. J (Civil) 2ADC 489
Section 14(1)
Regard being had to the findings and
decisions arrived at by the lower appel- late court as to possession of the
suit land which is based on materials on record we are of the view that the
High Court Division exceeded in its revision- al jurisdiction and illegally set
aside the findings and decisions arrived at by the lower appellate court
without noticing that the trial court was wrong in passing a decree for
permanent injunction with- out any definite finding of possession in the land
in suit by the plaintiff respon- dent. Deputy Commi.vsioner, Dhaka vs. Abdul Hakim
(Syed J. R Mudasssir Husain, J)(Civil) IADC 473
The Emergency Requisition of Property
(Amendmend), Ordinance, 1963
Section 14A
The settled law is that upon
acquisition. of particular property the same vests in the Government and that
being the posi tion in law the prayer for release made by the Respondents was
totally miscon ceived one since under the law they were not entitled to have
the property released. Director of Housing and Settlement, vs Abdul Majid
Howlader (Md. Ruhul Amin J) (Civil) 2 ADC 2ADC 8
The provision of Emergency Requisition
of Property Act, 1948
Section 8 (1)
To de-requisition the house in question
in the light of the provision of Section 8(1) of the Emergency Requisition of
Property Act. 1948. The Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh vs.
Kopil Das (Md. Ruhul Amin 1) (Civil) 5 ADC 214
Back the unutilized land to the original owner
It further appears that once the land is vested in the Government the original owner cannot get back the land only because the land remained unutilized. (Para-10, Mr. Justice Md. Abdul Matin). 6 ADC 79: Sheikh Abul Hossain & others Vs. Khulna Development Authority & others: Rule 78 of the Khulna Development Authority Rules
Means of Acquisition
Acquisition of land means acquired land vested with the Government acquired for public purpose, can be used utilized for another purpose acquired land cannot be reconvene towards trespasser. (Para-19, Mr. Justice Shahidul Islam). 63 DLR 479: Administrative Officer, Housing Settlement & others Vs. Abdur Rashid Chowdhury & others: Ref: 3 BLC 18, 14 BLC 831, 6 MLR(AD)41, 6 LG(AD)205.