Section 2(b)
The Court of Settlement was not a Court for determining the title of the rival claimants. It is a court only for determination as to whether the case property is an abandoned property or not.
Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Public Works vs Chairman, Court of Settlement and others 50 DLR (AD) 93.
Section 4
The case property having been included in 'Kha' list on 25-12-1988 for the first time it cannot be included in the list of abandoned property.
Nasir Hossain (Md) vs Bangladesh and others 49 DLR 557.
Section 4
Since no notice for surrendering possession of the property was issued, it can hardly be said that the property has been lawfully included in the list of abandoned buildings.
Nurul Hoque vs Bangladesh 46 DLR 601.
Section 5
Maintainability of suit in Civil Court-The suit building was included in the list published in the official Gazette in contravention of section 5(!)(a)(b) of the Ordinance and as such the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The Court clearly fell into error in holding that because of inclusion of the building in the official Gazette the suit was not maintainable.
Md. Zaher vs Bangladesh 42 DLR 430.
Section 5
Decree in a suit for Specific Performance of Contract-whether such a decree can be pleaded as a bar for inclusion of a building in the list of abandoned property.
The decree in the suit for specific performance of contract will show that it has only decided the controversy between the vendor and the vendee and directed the vendor to execute the necessary document in favour of the vendee. Such a decree is not the one which is mentioned in Proviso (a) and, as such, the existence of such a decree cannot be pleaded as a bar for inclusion of the building in the list.
CQMH Md Ayub Ali vs Bangladesh and others 47 DLR (AD) 71.
Section 5-
It is a. condition precedent that the physical possession of a building must have been taken over by the Government before it could be listed as an abandoned property.
Iqbal Ahmed Quraishi vs Bangladesh 45 DLR 416.
Section 5
When the petitioner as well as his vendor are citizens of Bangladesh and the disputed property had been in their possession successively without a notice under President's Order 16 of I 972 and the Rules thereunder the property cannot be treated as abandoned property.
Petitioner's assertion that no notice was served at any time to treat the disputed property as an abandoned property having not · been controverted we have no option but to hold that inclusion of the disputed property in the list of the abandoned properties published on 23.9.86 in pursuance of section 5 ofthe aforesaid Ordinance is without jurisdiction.
Alhaj Mohammad Rahim uddin Bharsha vs Bangladesh 46 DLR 130.
Section 5
Proviso (a) The ex parte decree obtained by the writ petitioner is a declaratory decree simpliciter without any prayer for recovery of possession, when, admittedly, the writ petitioenr was not in possession thereof. Such a decree is not within the contemplation of proviso (a) to Section 5.
Bangladesh vs Anwar Ahmed and others 51 DLR (AD) 42.
Section 5
The mere fact that the petitioner was not found by the survey team in the building in question cannot be the basis for holding the petitioner as an imposter of the original lessee.
Abul Hossain and others vs Bangladesh and others 53 DLR 94.
Section 5
The next contention as to obtaining a decree for specific performance of contract is of no avail as the Government is not bound by such a decree.
Hamayet Uddin Ahmed vs 1st Court of Settlement, Bangladesh Abandoned Building & ors 53 DLR 426.
Section 5
The decision of the court declaring the property as not being abandoned property and excluding the property from the list of abandoned property was sufficient relief and from the date of such judgment the property stood excluded from the list of abandoned properties (Vide 48 DLR 291).
Wahidul Haque vs Bangladesh and others 54 DLR 165.
Section 5
After the decision of the courts of law declaring any property as not being abandoned property a further release order of the same property by the government is not necessary. From the date of such judgment the property stands excluded from the list of abandoned properties.
Wahidul Haque vs Bangladesh and others 54 DLR 165.
Section 5
No rebuttable evidence could be adduced to show that original owner Yahiya was present in Bangladesh and he occupied, managed or supervised the disputed building when President's Order 16 of 1972 came into operation. Hence, the listing of the property as an abandoned property in the Supplementary Provisions Ordinance, 1985 was lawful as it was an abandoned property by operation of law.
Government of Bangladesh vs Ashraf Ali @ Ashraf Ali and another 49 DLR (AD) 161.
Sections 5 and 6
List of abandoned property-In the instant case the suit building was requisitioned before President's Order 16 of 1972 came into force on 10-3-1972. The list of buildings for publication in the official Gazette refers to buildings the possession of which has been taken over as abandoned property or the building in respect of which notice for surrendering or taking possession under PO 16 of 1972 has been issued. The requisition of the property and complete possession thereof having been final on 16-2-1972 and the same having never been' taken over as abandoned property, sections 5 & 6 of the Ordinance have no application with regard to the suit building.
Md Zaher vs Bangladesh 42 DLR 430.
Sections 5 and 7
The writ petitioners can come directly to the High Court Division for protection of their fundamental right even though an alternative remedy is available.
Government of Bangladesh, represented by Ministry of Works anti another vs Syed Chand Sultana and others 51 DLR (AD) 24.
Sections 5 and 7
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 merely because the same is disputed by the claimant.
Government of Bangladesh vs Md Jalil and others … DLR (AD) 10.
Section 5(1)(a)
The High Court Division, in our opinion, could itself interfere, notwithstanding correctly observing that there was an alternative remedy under section 7 of the Ordinance, in view of the particular facts of the case. The Ordinance was promulgated on 28 November 1985 and the list under section 5(l)(a) thereof was published in the gazette on 28-4- 1986. Section 7 provides that any person claiming any right or interest in any building which is included in the list may within a period of 108 (perhaps 190) days from the date of the publication of the list in the official gazette make an application to the court of settlement for exclusion of the building from such list, etc. It is not disputed that although the notification was published on 28-4-1986 the court of settlement was constituted on 21-10-1986. The appellant filed the writ petition on 19-8-1986, apparently at a time when the court of settlement was yet to be constituted. The High Court Division may not have admitted the petition at all because of the aforesaid provision but having admitted the same, apparently being aware that the court · of settlement was not constituted then, it was not quite proper to decline interference after three yars on the ground of alternative remedy, more so. having itself noticed that the Ministry of Home Affairs did not even come up with an affidavit to asert the presence of a Police Box as stated by the contesting respondents in their affidavit-inopposition in spite of a specific direction in that behalf.
Held: In the result, the appeal is allowed declaring the impugned notification has been made without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.
Begum Lutfunnessa vs Bangladesh 42 DLR (AD) 86.
Section 5(1)(b)
Serving notice to a wrong address making no attempt to take possession or to ascertain the status of the property casts doubt as to the bonafide of the respondents' intention to serve a proper and effective notice to surrender the possession of the property included in the 'Kha' list. Such a notice· cannot be considered a notice in the eye of law.
Syeda Chand Sultana and others vs Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Ministry of Works, and others 48 DLR 547.
Section 5(1)(b)
Since no notice as contemplated under section 5(1)(b) of the Ordinance was issued to the respondent 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 and ors 53 DLR (AD) 55.
Section 5(1)(b)
Notice as contemplated under section 5(1)(b) of the Ordinance having not been issued to the respondent inclusion of the disputed property in the 'Kha' list of the abandoned buildings is without lawful authority.
Government of Bangladesh and others vs Bibi Marium and others 54 DLR (AD) 100
Section 5(l)(a)(b) & (2)
Ex parte decree for specific performance of contract against the seller whose whereabouts were not known and the transfer on the basis thereof are in contravention of sections 6 and 14 of President's Order 16 of 1972 read with section 5 of Ordinance 54of1985 and the same are void and inoperative and need not be avoided. The inclusion of the property in question in the official Gazette as an abandoned property is not hit by the provisos (a) and (b) of section 5(1) of the Ordinance.
CQM Md Ayub Ali vs Bangladesh 45 DLR 746.
Section 5(2)
It must be presumed that the law as made is consistent and valid unless the presumption is rebutted.
Karamat Ali and others vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh & others 50 DLR 372.
Section 5(2)
Presumption of conclusiveness of evidence flowing from publication of the disputed house in 'Ka' list of abandoned property when remained unrebutted, the Court of Settlement was justified in holding that the property was rightly enlisted as such.
Shamima Khatoon vs Bangladesh 46 DLR 511.
Section 5(2)
Property listed as abandoned property-The burden is on the claimant to prove that it is not an abandoned property. Presumption of correctness of the entries in the Gazette Notification does not absolve the government of disclosing the basis for treating the property as abandoned property when it is disputed.
Jalil vs Chairman, Court of Settlement 44 DLR 288.
Section 5(2)
Enlistment as abandoned property-If the criteria set forth in section 5. are not fulfilled · in regard to any property, that property cannot be enlisted as abandoned property. The moment it is found that the property is not qualified to be enlisted as abandoned property, the jurisdiction of the Court of Settlement ceases to operate.
Abdul Khaleque vs The Court of Settlement 44 DLR 273.
Section 5(2)
The Ordinance has created a special forum to deal with a property enlisted as abandoned property. A special procedure has also been made therein to decide those cases. A legal presumption has also been attached under section 5(2) of the Ordinance to the list published under sub-section (1) as a conclusive evidence that the enlisted property is an abandoned property.
Bangladesh vs Anwar Ahmed and others 51 DLR (AD) 42.
Section 5(2)
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 merely because the same is disputed.
Hamayet Uddin Ahmed vs 1st Court of Settlement, Bangladesh Abandoned Building & ors 53 DLR 426.
Sections 5(2) & 7
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 merely because the same is disputed by the claimant.
Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Works vs Md Jalil & others 49 DLR (AD) 26.
Section 7
The petitioner cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction at the first stage without exhausting the other remedy provided for in the Ordinance (LIV of 1985).
The Court of Settlement has been given the specific power to exclude the disputed property from the list (a). The petitioner has been given a specific right to argue before the Court of Settlement that the building is not an abandoned property, that it was not vested in the Government or that right or interest in the building has not been affected by the provisions of President's Order No. 16 of 1972. When the statute has devised an alternative forum for giving complete relief to the petitioner, it is not understood how the petitioner can invoke this jurisdiction at the first stage without exhausting the remedy provided for in the Ordinance.
Begum Lutfunnessa vs Secretary, Ministry of Home & others 41 DLR 193.
Section 7
0ne need not seek remedy before the Court of Settlement once his right and status in respect of a disputed house was decided by a legally constituted forum.
Sarwari Begum vs Bangladesh 45 DLR 571.
Section 7
lf the Court of Settlement was not properly constituted as alleged by the petitioners and accepted by the High Court Division then the only conclusion should have been that the matter was not legally disposed of by that Court and should be taken to be pending.
Hasina Khatoon and others vs Bangladesh and others 48 DLR (AD) 13.
Section 7
The minimum the government must show in a proceeding where publication of the list of property taken over as abandoned property is challenged by its owner is that the possession of the property has at some point of time been taken over as abandoned property.
Karamat Ali and others vs Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh & others 50 DLR 372.
Section 7
Decision of the civil Court with regard to the nature of the property and also the plaintiff's claim thereto is not only binding upon the present petitioner but also upon the Court of Settlement.
Moinuddin (Md) vs The People's Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary Ministry of Works and another 48 DLR (AD) 56.
Section 7
Since the property in question never vested in the Government as abandoned property the question of limitation in filing of the case does not arise.
People's Republic of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Public Works, Secretariat Building vs Chairman Court of Settlement and others 49 DLR 560.
Section 7
The lease deed together with other documents showing the continuity of petitioner's possession and the failure of the government to show any basis of the owner of the property in dispute leaving the country and acquiring citizenship of other country go to show the title of the petitioner in the property and renders its enlistment in the "Ka" list denude of any legal authority.
Shamsul Haque vs. Court of Settlement and others 49 DLR 469.
Section 7
The High Court Division appears to have misconstrued and misconceived their jurisdiction under Article 102 in holding that the writ petition is maintainable, where the writ petitioner had already availed of the special remedy provided under section 7 of the Ordinance.
Bangladesh vs Anwar Ahmed and others 51 DLR (AD) 42.
Section 7
The plea taken by the respondent depending on the decisions in 42 DLR (AD) 86 and 51 DLR (AD) 25 that the writ petitioner could invoke the writ jurisdiction without having recourse to the Court of Settlement does not seem tenable because the jurisdiction of the Court of Settlement in this particular case in including the property in the list of abandoned properties cannot be said to be ex facie void.
Bangladesh and another vs Habib Zamil 52 DLR (AD) 174.
Section 7
Since the Court of Settlement has already directed for exclusion of the property from the list of abandoned property no further direction by the High Court Division is necessary to the same effect. The respondents are directed to restore possession of the property to the petitioner evicting the occupier respondent.
Akhtar Hossain vs Bangladesh, and others 52 DLR 148.
Sections 7 and 9
Court of Settlement – Validity of its orders-In view of the provision for constitution of the Court of Settlement order passed by the court in the absence of one member is not lawful. No provision has been made in the Ordinance that the order passed in the absence of one member shall not be invalid. It is clear that it was the intention of the Legislature that the Court of Settlement must be constituted to hear and dispose of matters with 3 members including the Chairman. Unless an order is passed by a properly constituted court it has no effect and it is no order in the eye of law even if it is otherwise proper.
Mst Fatima Begum vs Bangladesh 42 DLR 342.
Sections 7 and 10(5)
There being no scope for dismissal of the case for default, the Court of Settlement acted without jurisdiction in dismissing the case for default. The case is sent back on remand for disposal in accordance with law.
Shamim Begum vs Chairman, Court of Settlement and others 52 DLR 456.
Section 7(1)
We failed to understand under what reason the period of limitation has been fixed at l 08 days, Either it would be one month, three months or six months but section 7(1) has provided the limitation of 108 days which means 3 months 18 days and such period of limitation could nowhere be found in the Limitation Act or in any other special Act providing limitation, this may be through inadvertence or mistake that 180 days has been printed as 108 days.
Jamal Hossain (Md) and others vs Chairman, 2nd Court of Settlement, Abandoned Buildings, Dhaka and others 52 DLR 67.
Section 7(3)
There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was ever asked to show cause about inclusion of the property or to surrender the same which has definitely denied the right of natural justice to the petitioner.
Nasir Hossain (Md) vs Bangladesh and others 49 DLR 557.
Section 7(3)
An abandoned property in possession of any person can only be included in the list of "Abandoned properties", called "Kha" list, in respect of which notices for surrender have been issued and possession taken over as "Abandoned Property".
Lalima Begum and another vs. Chairman, Court of Settlement, 1st Court Dhaka and another 49 DLR 325.
Section 9(2)
Court of Settlement shall consist of a Chairman and two other members who shall be appointed by the Government.
Secretary, Ministry of Public Works vs Court of Settlement (I st Court) Bangladesh Abandoned Building 51 DLR 396.
Section 10
High Court Division in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot sit as a Court of Appeal over the judgment of the Court of Settlement for resettling questions of fact.
Mostafa Kamal (Md) vs First Court of Settlement and others 48 DLR (AD) 61.
Section 10
Decree by Civil Court-Whether Court of Settlement is competent to disturb it-The decree is binding on the Government until it is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. A party to the suit cannot say that an agreement, which was the basis of the suit, was forged. The Court of Settlement has no power to set aside a decree of the civil Court but it has the jurisdiction only to decide the matter on the basis of papers produced and so the decree stands against the Government.
Rahela Khatun vs Court of Settlement 45 DLR 5.
Section 10
By not deciding the case on merit the Court of Settlement acted illegally and without lawful authority.
Government of Bangladesh and others vs Md Hafizur Rahman and another 53 DLR (AD) 99.
Section 10(2)
Court of Settlement-Jurisdiction-The Court of Settlement is competent and within its jurisdiction to allow the prayer of any petitioner to exclude a building from the list of abandoned buildings and order the building to be restored to him.
Abdul Quddus vs Bangladesh 44 DLR 484.
Section 10(5)
Dismissal of case for default whether permissible-The Court of Settlement is not empowered to dismiss the case pending before it for default simpliciter. The law requires a decision on the issue raised-the same having not been given, the case must be sent back for trial.
Chand Miah Talukder vs Chairman, Court of Settlement and others 45 DLR 304.
Section 10(5)
The presumption of correctness of the entries in the Gazette Notification does not absolve the Government from disclosing the basis of treating the property as abandoned when it is disputed.
Nurul Hoque vs Bangladesh 46 DLR 601.
Section 10(5)
The denial of a fair trial will only arise if a proper opportunity is not afforded to the person for producing his evidence or any evidence sought to be adduced by him is unreasonably shut out or he is not given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A Court of Settlement under section 10(5) is obliged to make such enquiry as it may deem necessary and give reasonable opportunity to the parties concerned of being heard and to produce evidence, both oral and documentary, if any.
CQMH Md Ayub Ali vs Bangladesh and others 47 DLR (AD) 71.
Section 10(5)
There is no scope for the Court of Settlement to pass an ex parte order of dismissal for default as the Court of Settlement is required to give a decision on the issues raised by the parties.
Sukurjan Bibi vs Chairman, Court of Settlement, Dhaka 54 DLR 215.=
Section 10(5)
The petitioner ought to have been given chance to adduce evidence to prove the deed of sale in his name-His prayer should not be thrown away on the plea that his Advocate previously expressed intention not to examine any further witness.
Abdur Rahman vs Government of Bangladesh and another 55 DLR 196.
Sections 10(5) and (6)
The decision of the Court of Settlement declaring the disputed house as not being abandoned property and excluding the house from the 'Ka' list of abandoned property is sufficient relief and from the date of judgment the property is not an abandoned property and it stands excluded from the list of abandoned buildings, whether the Government by a further notification excludes it from the list of abandoned buildings or not.
Akbar Hossain (Md) vs Bangladesh and others 48 DLR 291.
Section 10(6)
There is no provision in this Ordinance that after the decision of the Court of Settlement the Government is required to make a further notification in the official Gazette notifying that the property has been excluded from the list of abandoned buildings.
Akbar Hossain (Md) vs Bangladesh and othes 48 DLR 291.