Easement Act, 1882

Easement Act, 1882 [V of 1882]


Extinction of easement right

When the
servient heritage of the subject- matter of the easement is so permanently
altered by change of its character that the dominant owner can no longer enjoy
the easement, the easement right in the property in question is totally

Osi Meah Sowdager Vs. Tulsidham Akherer &
Ors. 10 BLT (HCD)-391



means, in essence, possession or enjoyment, without passing any interest in the
property to which it relates, which could be otherwise wrongful.

Md. Nurul Haque Vs Mst: Anowara Begum &
Ors 13 BLT (HCD)31

East Bengal Emergency Requisition of Property
Act, 1948 Section-4

of notice—In matters o1 requisition for the purpose of acquisition notice is
mandatory—the government requires to serve notice upon the occupant or the
owner. That having not been done the so called acquisition and requisition is
without jurisdiction.

M. A. Razzaque Vs. Ministry of Land 6BLT

Sections-5(1), 5(3) and 5(7)

was issued under section 5(1) sometime in 1967-68 and final acquisition was
made by a notification dated 20th July, 1983 under section 5(7), there is no
time limit prescribed for final acquisition under section 5(7), but there
should be proximity between the date of notice under section 5(1) and that
under section-5(7).

Bangladesh Vs. Luxmi Bibi & Ors. 2BLT (AD)


In the present
case, the land was requisitioned for the purpose of permanent acquisition and
possession was taken long back and the purpose for which it was requisitioned
has been completed. In such a case the doctrine of legitimate expectation will
have no bearing. This delay of gazette notification under Section 5(7) of the
Act by itself will not ipso facto give any right to the writ petitioners to get
release of the land from requisition.

Govt. of Bangladesh & Ors. Vs. Abdul Wahab
Mia & Ors. 7BLT (AD)-169


Government is competent to with draw any property from acquisition and release
to the original owner in exercise of the power conferred by Section 8B of the
Act only before the payment of compensation and not after it.

Shah Ekramur Rahman Vs. Sec. Ministry of Land
& Ors. 3BLT (HCD)-35

Section- 14A

Plea of
bar of suit—ex parte decree set aside by the High Court Division of finding
that the disputed land was acquired long ago and due notification was made in
the Gazette— Appellate Division refrained from interfering with the judgment of
the High Court Division. Contention was raised that ex parte decree was not in
accordance with law.

Alfu. Miah and Others Vs. Bangladesh 1BLT