[Ordinance No. 54 of 1985]
Section-4(b) (i) Read with 5 (b)
(a) Illegal listing of the case property in ‘kha’ list of the Abandoned Buildings — the petitioner filed an application before the court of settlement, Abandoned Buildings— the court of settlement dismissed the case of the petitioner on the ground that the kabala in favour of the petitioner was executed by her vendor by putting L.T. I instead of putting signature in Urdu Held The mere fact that a man knowing how to sign his name executed the kabala in question by putting L.T. I. does not render the kabala invalid in the circumstances of the present case in the absence of any positive evidence in this regard — the court of settlement was not justified in holding that the kabala was not a genuine one only because the vendor executed the same by
putting L.T.I. instead of signature.
Mrs. Rushida Begum Vs chairman Court of Settlement Bangladesh 3BLT (HCD)-247
(b) Publication of the list in Abandoned Buildings in the official gazette under section 5,of the Ordinance 54 of 1985 is a conclusive proof that the property is an abandoned property as contended by the learned Deputy Attorney General—Held: We are unable to accept this submission because the requirements of law have not been complied with—relied on 44 DLR 273.
Mrs. Rashida Begum Vs Chairman Court of Settlement Bangladesh 3BLT (HCD)-247
Section-5(1)
Notice for surrendering or taking possession-Held: On going through the judgment of the Court of Settlement we find that those notices were issued on the respondent Nos.l-6 to produce their vendor Bib Homier when they had applied for mutating their names after their purchase from Bib Homier. Thus it appears that the Government petitioner did neither treat the disputed property as abandoned property nor nook any step to take over possession of the same till publication of Gazette notification in question. Since no notice as contemplated under Section 5(1)(b) of the said Ordinance was issued to the respondent Nos. 1-6 or any other person inclusion of the disputed property in the “Kha” list of the abandoned buildings is without lawful authority.
Bangladesh Vs. Amela Khatoon & Ors. 9BLT(AD)-98
Section-5(1)(a) and Section 5(1)(b)
In the instant case, neither possession of the property was taken over by the government, nor any notice was served upon the
petitioners. As such, the enlisting of the property as abandoned was illegal and without jurisdiction.
Moffassal Haque Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. 10BLT (HCD)-26
Section-7
In the instant case the court of settlement on perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record,
found that Syed Abdul Amin, the original owner of the house, did not make any valid gift in favour of the petitioner. that he had always treated the property as his own, that the petitioner was a citizen of Pakistan on 26th March 1971 and that she continued to be so until she became a naturalised American citizen—No material could also be produced from her side to show that she had ever possessed or managed the property in question—This petition merits no consideration.
Nelofer Ismet Haque Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. 6BLT (AD)-161 Section-7( 1)
Md. Yousuf the original owner as it appears was although in Bangladesh during and after the period of liberation war 1971
and that while he was in possession sold the case property to the respondent by 2 kabalas dated 30.01.1977 and 31.01.1977 and for this reason inclusion of the case property as abandoned property in ‘Kha’ list of the abandoned building cannot but he said to be without any lawful authority.
Govt. of Bangladesh Vs. Belayet Hossain & Ors. 12 BLT (AD)-71.