Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh Vs. Moslema Khatun

Appellate Division Cases Division

(Civil)

PARTIES

Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, represented

by the Secretary, Ministry of Public Works, Bangladesh

Secretariat, Ramna, Dhaka …………… Petitioner

-Vs-

Moslema Khatun and others……………….. Respondents

JUSTICES

Md. Ruhul Amin J

M.M. Ruhul Amin J

Md.Tafazzul Islam J

Judgment Dated: 29th November 2006

Seeking review of the judgment. The writ petition was filed challenging the legality of the judgment and order dated December 30, 1993 of the 1st Court of Settlement. The property in question was listed as abandoned property. …………….(1)

This Court while rejecting the petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court Division noticed that the High Court Division made the Rule absolute on the finding that no tangible evidence was brought before the Court in justification of listing the property in the list of abandoned property and further it was noticed by the High Court that the competent authority at one point of time recommended to the Ministry of Works for releasing the property from the list Of abandoned property and the authority took step for handing over the property in question to the claimant but ultimately did not deliver the possession. It was also noticed by the High Court Division from the materials on record that the authority found that the original owner of the property did not leave Bangladesh during the war of liberation or thereafter, rather he died in Bangladesh in 1973. In the background of the said finding and decision of the High Court Division this Division having had not found any merit for interference with the judgment of the High Court Division, dismissed the petition for leave to appeal…………………… (2)

Fida M. Keuned, Additional Attorney General, instructed by B. Hossain, Advocate-on-record ……………………For the Petitioner

Meihbubey Aleun, Senior Advocate, instructed by Chowdhury Md. Zahangir, Advoceite-on-record ………………………..For the Respondent

Civil Review Petition No.56 of 2005

(From the Judgment and Order dated February 22, 2004 passed by the Appellate

Division in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1105 of 2001)

JUDGMENT

Md. Ruhul Amin J: This petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated February 22, 2004 passed in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 1105 of 2001. The petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment dated March 1, 2001 of a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 1045 of 1994 making absolute the Rule. The writ petition was filed challenging the legality of the judgment and order dated December 30, 1993 of the 1st Court of Settlement, Dhaka in Case No. 16 of 1991 relating to a property in Mohammadpur. The property in question was listed as

abandoned property. The Court of Settlement dismissed the case but being challenged before the High Court Division in writ jurisdiction the judgment and order of the Court of Settlement was set aside and the property in question was declared as not abandoned property and direction was made to hand over possession to the claimant.

2. This Court while rejecting the petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court Division noticed that the High Court Division made the Rule absolute on the finding that no tangible evidence was brought before the Court in justification of listing the property in the list of abandoned property and further it was noticed by the High Court Division that the competent authority at one point of time recommended to the Ministry of Works for releasing the property from the list Of abandoned property and the authority took step for handing over the property in question to the claimant but ultimately did not deliver the possession. It was also noticed by the High Court Division

from the materials on record that the authority found that the original owner of the property did not leave Bangladesh during the war of liberation or thereafter, rather he died in Bangladesh in 1973. In the background of the said finding and decision of the High Court Division this Division having had not found any merit for interference with the judgment of the High Court Division, dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.

3. The learned Additional Attorney General could not point out any error apparent on the face of the judgment sought to be reviewed. Nor the petition for review has been filed upon discovery of new fact. In that state of the matter we do not find any merit in this petition.

4. Accordingly the review petition is dismissed.

Source : V ADC (2008),695

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.