EAST PAKISTAN ENEMY PROPERTY (LAND AND
BUILDINGS) ADMINISTRATION AND DISPOSAL ORDER, 1966
Article—8
Execution of decree
concerning vested property — Such property is immune from attachment,
seizure or sale in execution of any decree — Execution case should be stayed as
long as the suit property remains vested property.
Priyatosh Talukder Vs. Assistant Custodia ,, of Enemy Property
SBLD(HD)92
Ref: 29DLR32: IBLD(AD)126.
Article—8
Bar against sale in
execution of decree — Whether the bar exists after repeal of Ordinance No.
I of 1969 — With the enactment t Repealing Act, as amended, the Government got
all powers to dispose of vested propert by transfer or otherwise —
Administrator aid Disposal Order 1966 is a by-law which must fall to the ground
along with its parent law — Even if it had not been rewaled, it will have no
effect in view of the ier legislation. Ordinance No. 93 of 1976 which being
later in point of time is the last expression of the legislature’s will — With
repeal of the Defence of Pakistan Rules. Administration and Disposal Order
stood repealed — The bar to the execution of decree min favour of the appellant
has been removed — — Enemy Property (Continuance of Emergency Provisions)
(Repeal) Act, 1974(XLV of 1974) S. 3(1)(2). (Majority)
(Dissenting) — What
was the effect of the Ordinance of the appellant’s decree at the time he
obtained it — Could the decree be executed against the property in question 7
As on the date the Ordinance was in full operation the decree was evidently
inexecutable — Now when clause 2(b) refers to the previous operation of the
Ordinance the qualifying term ‘previous’ used before the word operation refers
to the inexcusability of the decree due to the operation of the Ordinance. The
legislative intent as it appears from this clause. would show that the repeal
was not intended to remove the inexecutahility of the decree in the present
case. (Per F. Munim C.J.)
(Agreeing with
majority) When the land vested under paragraph 8 of the Administration and
Disposal Order, 1966 it was only for a limited purpose — Ordinance No. 9 of
1976 being the latest legislative will displaced the bar given by the temporary
law and as such that will no longer be available for ic— sisting the decree to
be put into execution. (Per B.H.
Chowdhury)
Priyatosh Talukdar Vs. Assistant Costadian Vested and Non-Resident
Properly, Chittagong and others, 7BLD (AD)292
Ref: IK.B.(19 I6688Vol.1; (1829)9B&C 750,752relied,33D1
R(AD) I 75;5BLD(AD) IS 5.