Bangladesh
Abandonedproperty (Control, Management And Disposal) Order, 1972 (P0 16 Of
1972)
Article—2
Mere
omission to observe as to whether the petitioners were in this country on
28.2.72 is immaterial. It has been found by the Court of Settlement that the
predecessor of interest of the petitioners died here in 1982 leaving behind the
petitioners as his heirs who have inherited the said house as successor-in
interest and he continuously lived in this country and paid income tax of his
business till his death. The government most illegally declared the case
property as abandoned property.
Bibi Zarina
and others Vs Government of Bangladesh and others, 2O BLD (HCD) 164.
Article—2(1)
When
it is proved that the alleged owner of the property was not present in
Bangladesh during the relevant period, his whereabouts were not known and he
ceased to occupy, supervise or manage the property in person, such a property
easily comes within the definition of abandoned property as envisaged in
Article 2(1) of P.O. No. 16 of 1972.
Bangladesh
vs. Md. Suruzzamal and others, 15BLD (AD) 146
Ref: MIs. Khan
Brothers Ltd. vs. Government of Bangladesh, 27 DLR 423; Government of the
Peoples Republic of Bangladesh vs. MIs. Speedbird Navigation Co. 30 DLR (SC)
101; Bangladesh vs. Messrs A.TJ. Industries Ltd., 28 DLR (AD) 120; Gannyson vs.
Sonali Bank, 36 DLR (AD) 146—Cited.
Article—2(1)
From
the definition it appears that an abandoned property means any property owned
by a person (1) who is not present in Bangladesh, or (2) whose whereabouts are
not known, or (3) who has ceased to occupy, supervise or manage in person his
property. So, the disputed house did not come within the definition of
‘abandoned property’ of the case property as defined in Article 2 of P.O. No.
16 of 1972 and as such the enlistment as abandoned property in the ‘Kha’ list
of abandoned property is without lawful authority.
Masuda
Anowar Vs Bangladesh and another, 17 BLD (HCD) 427
Articles—2(1),
14 and 24
Abandoned
Property has been defined in Article 2(1) of P. 0. 16 of 1972 wherein it has
been said that if a person ceased to occupy or manage in person his property
the same is an abandoned property. Article 14 of P.O. 16 of 1972 clearly speaks
that any property vested in the Government under the Order shall be exempt from
all legal processes and Article 24 speaks that anything done or any action
taken or any order passed under the Order shall not be called in question in
any court. Hence, from the definition of abandoned property and on the basis of
the averment of the plaintiff himself when he failed to manage and supervise
the property in any manner the property vested in the Government as an
abandoned property. Therefore, the High Court Division was correct in holding
that the suit was filed for declaration of title and recovery of khas
possession is not maintainable.
Syed Afzal
Nowab Vs G. M. Yousuf and ors., 18 BLD (AD) 240
Article—2(5)
‘Property’
Under
Article 2(5) of the Order property means property of any kind, movable or
immovable and includes any right or interest in such property and any debt or
an actionable claim, any security or negotiable instrument, any right under a
contract and any industrial or commercial undertaking. The definition of
properties as given in Article 2(5) includes right under a contract.
Govt. of
Bangladesh Vs Saber Ahmed, 18 BLD (HCD) 498