ABANDONED PROPERTY (CONTROL, MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL) ORDER (P.O. 16 OF 1972)
4 and 10
Property—Landlord and tenant—Premises treated as abandoned property and
allotted to the existing tenant—On release premises restored to the owner—On
tenant’s prayer it was ordered to be restored to tenant—Government can cancel
tenancy only if created after 25.3.1971—If the leasehold interest does not come
within the mischief of abandoned the property law, the tenant does not become
unauthorised occupant and the tenancy does not cease when the premises is
treated as abandoned property— Premises lawfully ordered to be restored to
Vs. Ejamul Huq; 1 BLD (AD) 346.
to negative the declaration as such property— Gannysons has been incorporated
in Bangladesh—The presence of such a juristic person in Bangladesh cannot be
negative by any extraneous consideration—The Directors of the company have
always been in Bangladesh and even those who were temporarily outside the
country returned to Bangladesh long ago—By virtue of the power conferred by the
Constitution to do complete justice it is declared that Gannysons is not an
abandoned property—Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, 1972,
Gannysons Ltd. and another Vs. Sonali Bank and others; 5 BLD (AD) 225.
property of a person, residing in U.K. since 1952 first with a Pakistani
Passport granted in Dhaka as resident of Dhaka and renewed from time to time
and surrendered on 28.2.1972 and since then obtaining U.K. Passport and
acquiring British citizenship and who did not cease to manage his property is
ai abandoned property—If the residence of the owner of a property outside
Bangladesh is in the opinion of the Government for a purpose not prejudicial to
the interest of the State, then the property is not an abandoned property—But
the Government is to form its opinion on the events as they stood on
28.2.1972—In the absence of such an opinion the property of an absentee owner
cannot be regarded as abandoned property—Applying the principles it should have
been enough to dispose of the appeal by affirming the High Court Division’s
view that the property in question was not an abandoned property—No person
shall be deprived of his life and property unless it comes within the clear
provisions of law itself—To take away of any property it must be shown that the
property has come within he mischief of law clearly—The. respondent’s property
is not abandoned property because he has neither acquired any citizenship of
Pakistan nor has he ceased to manage his property and his temporary absence
from the country is not prejudicial to the interest of the country—The property
in question of the respondent is not an abandoned property.
of Bangladesh Vs. Mirza Shahab Ispahani; 8 BLD (AD) 41.
27 DLR 423; 27 DLR 55 I; 28DLR (AD) 120; 3ODLR (SC) 101.
of such property in favour of a person residing in U.K. from before liberation
with a Pakistani passport issued in Dhaka and since liberation with a British
passport and acquiring British citizenship—In ‘view of his continued and
prolonged stay in the United Kingdom and in view of his total lack of concern
for either Bangladeshi citizenship or Bangladesh pass- port, if it transpires
to the authority concerned that the petitioner was a Pakistani on ,the 25th
March 1971 and has never been heard to be either a Bangladeshi citizen or a
Bangladeshi passport holder, then it cannot be blamed for taking over or
treating his property as abandoned property—If by the citizenship laws of
Bangladesh the petitioner is deemed to be resident in Bangladesh on and after
25th March, 1971 then his Bangladeshi citizenship was not lost at any time,
even though he may not have applied for Bangladeshi passport there was abundant
material to show that by change in the citizenship laws of Bangladesh the
petitioner retained his Bangladeshi citizenship even since 25th day of March
1971 and in view of these developments the disputed property should have been
released in favour of the petitioner.
Ispahani Vs. government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh; 8BLD (HCD) 173
A.I.R. 1953 (SC) 244; 1951(2) All England Reports, 587; PLD 1975 (SC) 397.
incorporated in the territory now comprising Bangladesh—Property of such
company is outside the ambit of the definition of abandoned property.
Chowdhury and others Vs. Bangladesh, 1 BLD (HCD) 381.
27DLR423; 27DLR 551 and 29 DLR (AD) 18 1.
shares—Shareholder temporarily absent from Bangladesh—S hares do not vest as
abandoned property unless it could be shown that the Government was satisfied
by objective standards that absence of the shareholders was prejudicial to the
interest of Bangladesh.
Chowdhury and others Is. Bangladesh; 1 BLD (HCD) 381.
for sale entered into before 25.3.1971——Impossibility of performing such
contract on the property of a party becoming abandoned property—On the coming
into force of P.O. 16 of 1972 the agreement entered into before 25th March,
1971 is binding upon the Government in the same way as upon the original
owner—Government merely stepped into the shoes of the original owner—Contract
Act, 1872 ((X of 1872) S.56.
Chemical Industries (Bangladesh), Ltd. Vs. MIs. G.K. Brothers; 4 BLD (HCD) 207.
1978 B.S.C.R. 260.
a urban areas—Abandoned premises let out by Government to private person on
monthly rent—General law of landlord and tenant will apply in respect of
termination of such tenancy—B Bangladesh Abandoned Property (Buildings in the
Urban Areas) Rules, 1972, Rule 10—Premises Rent Control Ordinance (XX of 1963)
Ss. 18 and 19—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) S. 106.
Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh; 1 BLD (HCD)
may lease out abandoned property as well as Government property, but incidence
of the lease may differ—Discovery that the property leased out was Government
property and not abandoned property does not alter the position of the lease
and lessee—Government cannot be said to have lost power to lease out the
property when it is discovered that Government property, was leased out as an
Vs. Government of Bangladesh and others; 2 BLD (AD) 117.
inducted by the owner of the property before its taking over as abandoned
property—Cancellation of allotment of the property in favour of the tenant does
not authorize Government” to evict the tenant from the property—No adjudication
of right of such tenant can he made in deciding writ petition when the tenant
was not before the Court—Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972, Article, 102.
Shahjadi Khatoon aizd others vs. The Government of the People’s the public of
Bangladesh, 2 BLD (AD) 145.
ABANDONED PROPERTY (BUILDINGS IN THE URBAN AREAS) RULES, 1972
urban areas—Abandoned premises let out by Government to private person on
monthly rent—General law of landlord and tenant will apply in respect of
termination of such tenancy—Bangladesh Abandoned Property (Control, Management
and Disposal) Order (P.O. 16 of I 972), Article—5——Prentiss Rent Control
Ordinance (XX of 1963), Ss. 1 8 and 19—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882) S.
Credit and Commerce international (Overseas) Ltd. Vs. Bangladesh; IBLD (HCD) 2
members of the families of shahids of war of liberation have a legal right to
obtain allotment from the Government in an abandoned house for residential
purposes on the basis of a lease on monthly rental and judgment of this Court
cannot be used as subterfuge to evict and eject the dependent members of the
families of the martyrs.
In re Mrs.
Kohinoor Banu and another, 1 BLD (HCD) 155.