ENEMY PROPERTY(CONTINUANCE OF EMERGENCY
PROVISIONS) (REPEAL) ACT, 1974
not be said that the A.D.C. (Rev) in the absence of prior approval as required
under circular dated 23rd May, 1977, had no authority to execute the document
in question on behalf of the Government.
The Memo dated 13.8.73 read with Annexure — “F” along with all
other circulars on this subject leave no room for doubt that the A.D.C. (Rev) vas
properly and duly authorised under the law by the Government to execute and
register the deed of settlement on behalf of the Government. Therefore, the
alleged absence of prior approval of the Government seems to be absent in the
present case in any case.
It is found that the view taken by the High Court Division
that the A.D.C. could not make the transfer in question without the prior
approval of the Government and as such the settlement made by him on 9.10.79 in
favour of the appellants was void and without jurisdiction cannot be sustained and
that it ought to have declared that the impugned Government order was passed
without lawful authority.
Muzaffar All and another Vs. Govt. of Bangladesh and another, IIBLD
Ref: 1984 All. E.R. (Vol. II) 767; 22 DLR (HC)315; PLD
1969(SC) 407;— Cited.
Enemy or Vested
property — Declaration and listing in 1985 of property as vested property
belonging to one who lost interest therein by decree in 1962 is not valid—
Hrishikesh roy had no right and interest in the case property after the passing
of the decree in 1962 and the right and possession there for remained with the
petitioner and as Panil Bala Roy never left the country, the declaration and
listing of the same as vested property is illegal and without jurisdiction.
Sreemati Parul Kusum Roy Vs. Bangladesh and others, 8BLD(HCD)6
Section — 3(1)(2)
Majority Per S. Ahmed,
J.(B.H. Ctiowdhury, M.H. Rahman and A.T.M. Afzal, JJ. agreeing)
Vested Property —
Bar against sale in execution of decree Whether the bar exists after repeal of
Ordinance No. I of 1969 — With the enactment of the Repealing Act, as amended,
the Government got all powers to dispose of vested property by transfer or
otherwise — Administration and Disposal Order 1966 is a by-law which must fall
to the ground along with its parent law — Even if it had not been repealed, it
will have no effect in view of the later legislation, Ordinance No. 93 of 1976
which being later in point of time is the last expression of the legislature’s
will — With the repeal of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, the Administration and
Disposal Order stood repealed — The bar to the execution of decree in favour of
the appellant has been removed — East Pakistan Enemy Property (Land and
Building) Administration and Disposal Order, 1966, Article — 8.
Per Fazle Munim, C.J.
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 ? As on that date the Ordinance was in full operation the decree
was evidently inexecutable. Now when ca1use 2(b) refers to the previous
operation of the Ordinance the qualifying term ‘previous’ used be-fore the word
‘operation’ refers to the inexecutability 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 B.H. Chowdhury, J.
When the land vested under paragraph 8 of the Administration
and Disposal Order, 1966 it was only for a limited purpose. Ordinance No. 93 of
1976 being the latest legislative will displaced the bar put by the temporary
law and as such that will no longer be available for resisting the decree; to
he put into execution.
Privatosh Talukder Vs. Assistant Custodian, Vested and Non-resident
Property, Chittagong and others, 7BLD (AD)292
Effect of the
provisions of Act XLV of 1974
The effect of the provisions of Act XLV of 1974 as amended by
Ordinance XCII and XCIII of 1976 is the vesting of the property as enemy
property by virtue of Defence of Pakistan Rules in the Custodian or Additional
Custodian or the Board continued as vested property in the Government of
Bangladesh. The consequence is that th Government has all the power of management
and disposal of those properties and also the power of release.
M/s. Dulichand Omraolal Vs. Bangladesh, 1BLD (AD) 1