Abandoned Building–
The respondent purchased the disputed house by a registered deed of sale on 29.09.1987 from Lawrence Benefit although the disputed house was listed in the ‘Ka’ list as abandoned buildings by the gazette notification dated 23.09.1986 and therefore, the alleged purchase of the respondent dated 29.09.1987 was illegal.
The High Court Division stated that the respondent produced all the original deeds from her custody. In fact, the respondent filed the certified copy of the deed of lease dated 30.12.1963 and the certified copy of the registered power of attorney dated 21.08.1972. Therefore, the High Court Division erroneously held that all the original deeds in respect of the disputed house were produced from the custody of the respondent.
In the light of the findings, we find substances in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with cost and the impugned judgment is set aside. …Ministry of Housing and Public Works, BD =VS= Shahida Begum, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 10]
After 31.10.1988 no property can be treated as an abandoned property and or possession can be taken up .....(4)
The impugned notice (Annexure-I) bearing no memo. no. asking the pres- ent respondent no. 1 to appear on 22.04.2003 with the threat that if he fails to appear before him and produce necessary papers relating to his right, title and possession over the case land, that would be declared as abandoned property was signed on 16.04.2003, that is almost 15 years after the above mentioned deadline which is an out and out illegal notice, issued without lawful authority, mala fide as well. .....(12)
Ministry of Public Works vs. Shafiqul Islam Chowdhury (Md. Nuruzzaman J) (Civil) 20 ADC 395
৩১.১০.১৯৮৮ এর পর কোনো সম্পত্তিকে পরিত্যক্ত সম্পত্তি হিসেবে গণ্য করা যাবে না এবং বা দখল নেওয়া যাবে না .....(৪)
বর্তমান প্রতিপক্ষ নং ১ কে ২২.০৪.২০০৩ তারিখে হাজির হওয়ার জন্য বলা বিতর্কিত নোটিশ (সংযুক্তি-১) যাতে কোনো স্মারক নং নেই, এই হুমকির সাথে যে যদি তিনি তার সামনে হাজির হতে এবং মামলার জমির উপর তার অধিকার, মালিকানা এবং দখল সম্পর্কিত প্রয়োজনীয় কাগজপত্র উপস্থাপন করতে ব্যর্থ হন, তবে তা পরিত্যক্ত সম্পত্তি হিসাবে ঘোষণা করা হবে ১৬.০৪.২০০৩ তারিখে স্বাক্ষরিত হয়েছিল, যা উপরোক্ত উল্লিখিত সময়সীমার প্রায় ১৫ বছর পরে যা একটি সম্পূর্ণ অবৈধ নোটিশ, আইনানুগ কর্তৃত্ব ছাড়াই জারি করা হয়েছে, কু-মতলবেও বটে। .....(১২)
গণপূর্ত মন্ত্রণালয় বনাম শফিকুল ইসলাম চৌধুরী (মোঃ নুরুজ্জামান জে) (দেওয়ানী) ২০ এডিসি ৩৯৫
Abandoned Property–
It appears that the suit property is a Government Khas Mohal property and all parties failed to prove their respective case and unlawful lease extension period of Khadiza already expired. Raisa's lease period expired long before and she is not before us with any claim on the suit property. Therefore, the suit property is now a Khas Mohal property of the Government as the Abandoned Property Authority excluded it from the list of abandoned properties unlawfully and collusively.
We are of the view that Khadiza Islam is not entitled to get any further extension of her lease from the Government. She had no legal right for extension of Raisa's leasehold right at any time. We are further of the view that the Government must take over actual/physical possession of the suit property from Waziuddin/ Khadiza/ the persons/ person, whoever be in possession thereof within 60 days from the date of receiving the copy of this judgment in its present condition. …Noor Mohammad Khan =VS= Raisa Aziz Begum, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 248]
Abandoned building–
The High Court Division in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot sit as a court of appeal over the judgement of the Court of Settlement for re-settling the questions of fact. In that case also the Court of Settlement on consideration of the materials on record arrived at a finding that the petitioner in that case was not the daughter and heir of the original lessee and that she had not been in possession of the house in question at the relevant time. The respondent failed to prove her claim to be the heir of the original allottee and also that the building was unlawfully declared abandoned. She could not prove that she was in possession of the building. The Court of Settlement, having called the relevant records for the building in question, came to a finding that the building was in the possession of the Government and declared it as having been lawfully declared as abandoned property. We find merit in the appeal, which is accordingly allowed, without however, any order as to costs. The impugned judgement and order of the High Court Division is set aside. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Musammat Amikun, (Civil), 2018 (2) [5 LM (AD) 1]
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]
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]
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]
Unless the claimant/ complainant can prove by filing application under section 7 of the said Ordinance of 1985 before the Court of Settlement within 180 days from the date of publication of such list in the official gazette for exclusion of the same from such list or return or restoration of the same to him on the ground that the building is not an abandoned building and has not vested in the government as the owner's whereabouts are known and she/he did not leave this country during the war of liberation and he/ she is a citizen of Bangladesh, the presumption would be that the property is an abandoned property and vested in the government as such. But in the present case, the writ-petitioner could not prove either of the aforesaid qualifications to be the rightful owner of the said property though he moved the Court of Settlement in 1989 but the Court of Settlement found the application barred by limitation and, as such, it rejected the same. Then he moved the High Court Division under Article 102 of the Constitution for redress. [73 DLR (AD) (2021) 102]
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
Abandoned Property
Decree obtained after President's Order
Decrees obtained after President's Order 16 of 1972 will not affect the abandoned character of any property included in the abandoned property list. (Para-18, Mr. Justice Muhammad Imman Ali). Ref: 48 DLR(AD)10 Para-8, 47 DLR(AD)71, Para-17 6 ALR(AD)(2)149: The Chairman, 1" Settlement Court & others Vs. Most. Salima Khatun & others:
Jurisdiction of the Court of Settlement
Section 10 of the Bangladesh Abandoned Building (Supplementary Provisions) Ordinance, 1985: This is correct that the Court of Settlement has a limited jurisdiction only to look into whether a particular property answers to the definition of abandoned property or not. But for that purpose it has jurisdiction also to see whether the applicant has locus standi to claim the property in question. (Para-20, Mr. Justice Md. Ruhul Quddus). 66 DLR 186: AKM Waliullah & others Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works & others: Ref: 17 DLR(SC)520, 50 DLR(AD)93, 2 AC 147, AIR 1963 Cal 225, PLD 1966 Supreme Court 854-19 DLR(SC)281.
Owner was in Bangladesh and managed the property
It appears that it is the property of two holding which were treated as Abandoned Property. Further admittedly the owner was in Bangladesh and he owned and managed the property till 1978 when he entered into an agreement to sell the suit property with the plaintiff and since then, it is the plaintiff who is possessing and managing the property. so the question of property being abandoned does not arise at all. To us it appears that the Government did not act bonafide in contesting the case of the plaintiff on the plea that the suit property was an Abandoned Property. (Para-29, Mr. Justice Md. Abdul Wahhab Miah) 21 BLC(AD)178: Government of Bangladesh & others Vs. Hamid Ali Chowdhury & others: Ref: 42 DLR(AD)63.
Abandoned Property Matter
Abandoned building- The High Court Division in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot sit as a court of appeal over the judgement of the Court of Settlement for re-settling the questions of fact. In that case also the Court of Settlement on consideration of the materials on record arrived at a finding that the petitioner in that case was not the daughter and heir of the original lessee and that she had not been in possession of the house in question at the relevant time. The respondent failed to prove her claim to be the heir of the original allottee and also that the building was unlawfully declared abandoned. She could not prove that she was in possession of the building. The Court of Settlement, having called the relevant records for the building in question, came to a finding that the building was in the possession of the Government and declared it as having been lawfully declared as abandoned property. We find merit in the appeal, which is accordingly allowed, without however, any order as to costs. The impugned judgement and order of the High Court Division is set aside. ..... Government of Bangladesh -VS- Musammat Amikun, [5 LM (AD) 1]
Abandoned Property Matter:-
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.), [7 LM (AD) 200]
Abandoned Property Matter:-
Abandoned Building- The respondent purchased the disputed house by a registered deed of sale on 29.09.1987 from Lawrence Benefit although the disputed house was listed in the 'Ka' list as abandoned buildings by the gazette notification dated 23.09.1986 and therefore, the alleged purchase of the respondent dated 29.09.1987 was illegal.
The High Court Division stated that the respondent produced all the original deeds from her custody. In fact, the respondent filed the certified copy of the deed of lease dated 30.12.1963 and the certified copy of the registered power of attorney dated 21.08.1972. Therefore, the High Court Division erroneously held that all the original deeds in respect of the disputed house were produced from the custody of the respondent.
In the light of the findings, we find substances in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with cost and the impugned judgment is set aside.... Ministry of Housing and Public Works, BD =VS= Shahida Begum, [8 LM (AD) 10]
Abandoned Property Matter:- 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, [7 LM (AD) 158]
Abandoned Property Matter:-
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 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), [7 LM (AD) 323]
Abandoned Property Matter:-
Abandoned Property- It appears that the suit property is a Government Khas Mohal property and all parties failed to prove their respective case and unlawful lease extension period of Khadiza already expired. Raisa's lease period expired long before and she is not before us with any claim on the suit property. Therefore, the suit property is now a Khas Mohal property of the Government as the Abandoned Property Authority excluded it from the list of abandoned properties unlawfully and collusively.
We are of the view that Khadiza Islam is not entitled to get any further extension of her lease from the Government. She had no legal right for extension of Raisa's leasehold right at any time. We are further of the view that the Government must take over actual/physical possession of the suit property from Waziuddin/ Khadiza/ the persons/ person, whoever be in possession thereof within 60 days from the date of receiving the copy of this judgment in its present condition. ... Noor Mohammad Khan =VS= Raisa Aziz Begum, [8 LM (AD) 248]
Abandoned Property Matter:- The property was left in uncared condition just immediately after the independence of the country and it was rightly declared as abandoned property- There is no cause of action in the suit and it is also not clear whether Hakim Syed Abdul All or his brother is still alive or not. The property was left in uncared condition just immediately after the independence of the country and it was rightly declared as abandoned property. The judgments of the trial court, the appellate court, the High Court Division and this court are also based upon forged and false evidence. These judgments are set aside. Bangladesh =VS= Naznin Begum(Most.), [3 LM (AD) 66]
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, [10 LM (AD) 62]
Abandoned Properties lost character if released by Government
Once the disputed properties were released by the Government petitioner from the list of abandoned buildings, the properties had lost the character of abandoned properties and as such the Government petitioner had no locus standi to file the civil suit challenging the validity of the gift made in favour of the respondent after disposal of the writ petitions, review petitions and civil pett- tions for leave to appeal. Bangladesh vs Ali Akbar Ansari (M. M. Ruhul Amin J)(Civil) 2 ADC 841
