Public purpose—in this instant case, the respondent No. 4 Paharika Girls High School has been running on the ground floor of the two storied building within the land under the acquisition proceeding. It is the positive case of the respondents that with the passage of time, the number of the students increased to a great extent and without the expansion of the area of the school, education to the students of the school cannot be imparted and for the accommodation purpose, the land in question is
needed by the school authority. It is not disputed by the petitioners that the school has not been functioning and the number of students- are not increasing. The school is imparting education to the students and rendering services to the – community in general. Getting the future generation of the country trained up and imparting education to maximum number of students and children is the State policy of education. Fulfillment of social and public duty definitely gets precedence over the individual need and the individual need requires to be sacrificed to the public need.

Mirinalendu Pal Vs. Srimati Bhagabati Pal & Ors 8 BLT (HCD)-42


Religious worship—the religious worship must be by the public and not he individuals—we think that the place of religious worship as mentioned in the place of public religious worship. Such as, Temple or Mandir where members of the community assemble for the purpose of worship.

Mirinalendu Pal Vs. Srimati Bhagabati Pal & Ors 8BLT (HCD)-42

Section- 12

When the requiring body can he asked to deposit the compensation money and when abatement or revocation of Acquisition Proceedings takes place.

The requiring body may be asked to deposit the compensation money only after the decision to acquire is finally made by the
Government under section 12 no obligation is placed on the requiring body to deposit compensation within six months from the date of decision for acquisition.

Bangladesh Vs. Subash Chandra Das & Ors 2 BLT(AD)-30

Legal consequence of abatement will follow only when the government fails to pay” or “deposit” compensation in terms of
section 10 of the said Ordinance.

Bangladesh Vs. Subash. Chandra Das & Ors 2BLT(AD)-30

Section – 12

(a) Requisite fund not being placed by the requiring body within time, the acquisition proceeding abated under section 12 (1) of the Ordinance with effect from 18-12-84 by a Gazette notification dated 13.1.55 and a fresh L.A, proceeding bearing the same number was started once again in respect of the case land. The appellant claimed Tk. l,50,00,000/ as compensation under section 12 (3) of the Ordinance as damages suffered by the owner consequent upon the abatement of the L.A. proceeding. Although the Arbitrator awarded a sum of Tk. 6,50,000/- in partial acceptance of the claim, the Arbitration Appellate Tribunal (District- Judge) disallowed this claim rightly on the ground that the provisions of section 12 (3) of the Ordinance are applicable only in a case of simple abatement of acquisition and not in a case when abatement is followed by a further proceeding for acquisition of the same land.

Khaled Akter Vs. Bangladesh 2BLT(AD)-59

(b) Matters to be considered are first, the damage must be suffered in consequence of the abated notice or any proceeding thereunder; secondly, the damage suffered has to he specifically pleaded and proved and there cannot be any objective standard of the damage. It will vary from case to case; thirdly, the owner can also recover costs incurred by him in the prosecution of the abated proceeding.

Khaled Akter Vs. Bangladesh 2BLT (AD)-59

(c) Case land being in the effective” control of respondent No. 2, handing over of possession to the appellant’s father was only a paper transaction. As the appellant never enjoyed physical possession of the case land, the award of interest from the date of taking possession does not arise.

Khaled Akter Vs. Bangladesh 2BLT (AD)-59

Section-12 read with Section-10

A case of abatement of the proceeding

It is only ii the petitioner is able to establish that he himself as owner of the acquired land was not paid compensation or that his compensation money was not deposited within one year decision to acquire under from the date of decision to acquire under section 5 or the proviso to section 4(3)(b) of the Ordinance that he can make out a case for abatement of the proceeding. Whether the requiring body had paid the amount within one year of the said date is a matter between the Government and the
requiring body. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not paid compensation Or that his compensation money was not deposited within one year from the date of decision to acquire under section 5 or the proviso to section 4(3)(b) of the Ordinance. As such he has no business to enquire when the requiring body paid the amount of compensation to the Government.

Md. Alauddin Khandker Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors. 8 BLT (AD)-78.


A person who has not accepted any award is entitled to make an application to the arbitrator for revision of the award and
secondly, he must make the application within forty-five days of the date of notice of the award—A person fails to fulfill either of the two conditions, his application must be held to be not maintainable.

Ali Hossain Vs. Arbitrator 8BLT (HCD)-70.

Section-34 Read with Section-5 of The Limitation Act, 1908

Appeal against the Award of Arbitrator—From a plain reading of section 34 of the Ordinance it is manifestly clear that no special period of limitation for preferring an appeal before the Arbitration Appellate Tribunal has been prescribed. The Ordinance No. 11 of 1982 is special law. As such in the absence- of any such special period of limitation prescribed in the Ordinance for preferring an appeal before the Arbitration Appellate Tribunal, general law of limitation codified in the Limitation Act comes into play and section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable in such cases.

Govt. of Bangladesh Vs. District Judge & Ors. 5BLT (HCD)-124

Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable
Property(Amendments) Act, 1994


After completion of acquisition the acquired land vests in the Government free from all encumbrances. On vesting, all incidents of joint ownership, if any, are severed. When such land is handed over to the requiring body such body possesses the land absolutely against the whole world. No one could in Law be said to be a co-owner in possession with such requiring body.

Abdul Khaleque Vs. Akram Hossain. – 11BLT (HCD)-470.