No. 12 of 1972

P.O. No. 12 of 1972 has no application in case of a private document.

Abdul Kaleque Sarnamath Vs Abdul Kaleque Sarnamath & Ors. 3BLT (AD)-140

President Order No. 16 of 1972 Article-6

In the instant case the admitted position that the government acting through the Ministry of public work having considered all aspects of the case released the suit property in favour of Md. Hanif vide release order dated 11.11.1981 since the suit property was not an abandoned property in law therefore sale deed dated 16.07.1981 executed and registered in favour of respondent No. 1 Shahida Begum by Md. Hanif had conferred title to Shahida Begum in respect of the suit property.

Most Asia Begum & Ors. Vs. Shahida Begum & Ors. 12 BLT (AD)-69

Article – 6

Whether the property became abandoned property by law

It appears that there is no material on record to show that Abdul Jalil was in possession of the suit property after liberation of the country or he managed, supervised or controlled the property. Therefore, by operation of law that is P.0.16 of 1972 the property become abandoned property and the plaintiff purchased the suit property at a time when the same was abandoned property and such transfer is hit by Article 6 of P.0.16 of 1972.

The Government of Bangladesh Vs. Israt Jahan Kazal 14 BLT (AD)260

President Order No. 27 of 1972 Article-9

Since the transfer never took effect the respondents are the legal holders of the shares. It means 1,25,000 shares lying in the share register as on December, 1972 are lying in the name of the respondent company. Therefore, though the Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company Limited was nationalized but the aforementioned number of shares not having been transferred in its name the title to the shares remained with the respondents.

Bangladesh Jute Mills Corp. Vs. Shilpa Protisthan Ltd. & Ors. 12 BLT (AD)-50

P.O. No. 59 of 1972 Article-4(3)

Article 4(3) was never meant to be a provision for enabling the Government to interfere with the day-to-day function of either Board in an individual case and in a particular contractual matter between a Board and a contractor. If the writ petitioner was aggrieved by the order of deduction from its bills it could immediately raise a dispute and refer the same for arbitration under clause 25 of the contract between itself and the said Board. The matter would have taken its usual course in terms of the contract.

Chairman, Bangladesh Water Development Board & Anr. Vs. M/S Shamsul Haque & Co. Ltd. & Ors. 9 BLT(AD)-105

President’s Order No. 69 of 1972 Article-4(2) and President’s Order No. 90 of 1972 Article-2

Abatement of a suit — The instant suit was instituted against the Province of East Pakistan and the Deputy Commissioner of Dhaka. By virtue of clause (I) of Article 4 of President’s Order No, 69 of 1972 Bangladesh was deemed to be substituted for the Province of East Pakistan, but clause (2) left an option to the Government of Bangladesh not to be impleaded in which case the
suit was to abate as a whole if it was not maintainable against the rest of the defendants. In this case bereft of the Government of Bangladesh there are no parties against whom the suit could continue. The Government having submitted a written application to the court stating that it would not be a party to the proceeding the suit as a whole abated with effect from the date of submission of such application.

Bangladesh Vs. Chowdhury Tanbir Ahmed Siddiky 5BLT (AD)-236

P.O.No. 142 of 1972 Section – 5 Majority View

Inclusion of the building in the list — The decree in the suit for specific performance of contract will show that it has only decided the controversy between the vendor and the vendee and directed the vendor to execute the necessary document in favour of the vendee— such a decree if not the one which is mentioned in Proviso (a) and as such the existence of such a decree cannot be pleaded as a bar for inclusion of the building in the list.

Md. Ayub Ali Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. 3BLT (AD)-146

President Order No. 142 of 1972 Article-6(a)

Suit was filed seeking specific performance of Contract

As it appears the said law was enacted to prevent at the said relevant time obtaining of the decree of the nature mentioned in Article 6(a) of P.O. No. 142 of 1972. The said P.O. was enacted to safeguard the interest of the Government as regard the property that has vested in the Government being the abandoned property or because of the absence of the rightful owner so that Government is not deprive of such kind of property by the decree of the kind as mentioned in Article 6(a) of P.O. No. 142 of 1972. As appears to us the said P.O. has been enacted to prevent certain kind of transfer of immovable property in derogation of some legislative enactments and the prohibition therein and that keeping in view the said dominant purpose of the enactment it in no way can be said that the contract for the enforcement of which the instant suit was filed the same was bad for non-impleading the Government as a party.

Md. Esher Ali Sheikh Vs. Md. Mokarram Ali & Ors 12BLT(AD)133

P. O. 149 of 1972

The questions whether by his conduct the respondent disqualified himself to be a citizen of Bangladesh or whether be renounced his citizenship of Bangladesh or whether he continued to be a citizen of Pakistan are totally irrelevant under Article 3, if the purpose was to elector the persons mentioned in the modification form making anti Bangladesh propaganda then that was not covered by Article 3. The only question that can be decided under Art. 3—whether a person is qualified to be deemed to be a citizen of Bangladesh. The notification indicates that the government did not ask the right question, namely, whether the respondent was a permanent resident in Bangladesh on 15 December, 1972. It was not made in exercise of power under Art. 3 and it, therefore, must be held to be ultra-vires.

Bangladesh Vs. Prof Golam Azam & Ors. 3BLT (AD)-3

Prof. Golam Azam tried to come back to Bangladesh, his time for fifty years from his birth. He surrendered his Pakistan passport. He took an oath of allegiance to Bangladesh against whose independence he worked although the liberation was in
1971. He resided in Bangladesh for more than 14 years, never visiting Pakistan or any other country. It was a case of the return of the native back to his ancestor’s his Pakistani passport. His wife and 7 children are Bangladeshi citizen by birth. He has got properties in this country.

Bangladesh Vs. Prof Golam Azam & Ors. 3BLT (AD)-3

But Government’s view is mainly based on the respondent’s political conflict during the liberation struggle and after. There is complete unanimity on all hands that the political conduct of the resident was wholly irrelevant for deciding
the question under Article 3 of P.O. No 149 of 1972. There is no power under Article 3 for denuding a person of his citizenship for the offence of collaboration with the Pakistan Occupation Army. Indeed, there is nothing in P.O. No 149 of 1972 which authorised the Government on the date of the impugned notification to disqualify a citizen on the ground of collaboration with the Pakistan Occupation Army. Such P.O. was never intended to punish an alleged collaborator of the said Army by stripping him of his citizenship.

Bangladesh Vs. Prof Golam Azam & Ors. 3BLT (AD)-3

The argument of the learned Attorney General is long on emotion and short on law. First, his commentaries on the cjimina1 aspect of the political antecedents of the respondent were never tested in a court of law. Secondly, even if the allegations are correct, citizenship law does not deny citizenship to those who opposed the creation of Bangladesh and even killed freedom fighters and were engaged in murder, rape, etc. There were many Muslims (and Hindus as well) who opposed the creation of Pakistan Citizenship law did not deny them citizenship. They deemed to be citizen of Pakistan if they had permanent residence in the territory of Pakistan and did not leave the same. Bangladesh also followed the same principle. In Bangladesh, collaborators and Razakars were prosecuted under the collaborators order P.O. No 8 of 1972, but they were not denied the
citizenship of Bangladesh.

Bangladesh Vs. Prof Golam Azam & Ors. 3BLT (AD)-3.