Whether the High Court Division upon total misconception of plaintiffs case and by making out a third case under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 acted illegally in setting aside the decree of the lower appellate court and in decreeing the suit.

Having considered the admitted facts that the suit land along with other lands had been acquired by the Government in 1941-42 for the purpose of setting up of Noakhali Sadar Head Quarters and that thereby the Government became its owner and the accordingly both R.S. and S.A. record have been prepared in the name of the Government, the lower appellate court rightly held that the plantiffs was have no right, title and interest in the suit land have also no locus standi to question the lease granted by the Government of its khas land to defendant No.l. The lower appellate court further held that in respect of the acquired land, the court cannot direct the Government to lease out the suit land to the plaintiffs simply because their predecessors-in-interest as the original owners had been in possession even after acquisition. It does not appear either from the judgment of the trial court or from the lower appellate court that the plaintiffs had ever made out any ease under section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, namely that no award regarding compensation for acquisition of the land was prepared by the Government or the original owners did not receive any compensation for acquisition in question. It appears that the learned Judge of the High Court Division upon making out a third case, on consideration of section 16 of the said Act. has wrongly reversed the decree of the lower appellant court and decreed the suit wrongly holding, inter alia, that although the land had been acquired by the Government as far back as in 1941 the same did not absolutely vest in the Government free from all encumbrance because the Government did not take physical possession thereof in pursuance of the acquisition in question. Moreover the learned Judge of the High Court Division was not justified in considering the trial court’s finding that defendant No.l is a monthly tenant in respect of the suit land, overlooking that the lower appellate court rightly held that the plaintiffs, who have no right, title and interest in the suit land, had no legal authority to induct defendant No.l as a monthly tenant in the suit land.

Govt of Bangladesh & Ors. Vs. Bahar Mia & Ors.8BLT(AD)-121

Whether the High Court Division rightly Considering the decision reported in 14 BLD (AD)20.

It appears that the learned Single Judge on due consideration of evidence came to the finding that the appellant waived her right of preemption by refusing to purchase the land transferred at the earliest opportunity and thai she is stopped from repurchasing the land. The learned Jude in so holding rightly relied upon the decision in the case of Akhlasur Rahman & ors. Vs. Safarullah & ors. 14 BLD(AD) 20. In Akhlasur Rahman this Division held “that the right (right of preemption) can be waived or relinquished at an earlier date than on date of actual completion of sale
under the law or thereafter”. [Para-9(9)]

Most. Rokeya Begum Vs. Md. Abu Zaher & Ors. 8 BLT(AD)-134.

Whether the orders of punishment are violative of the principle of natural justice.

In the instant cases the petitioners were given ample opportunity for hearing and they never asked for copy of the report of the fact-finding committee — petitioners are dismissed.

Md. Harun-Ur-Rashid & O.s. Vs. BUET & Ors. 8 BLT(AD)-156.

Whether for absence of the plaintiff appellant from Bangladesh for certain years his citizenship will cease or he will retain his citizenship legally because he is by birth a citizen of Bangladesh and his parents were also permanent residents of Bangladesh.

Held : The Citizenship by birth is a complete legal right and averted constitutional right which cannot be taken away or denied or lost to a particular citizen for his temporary absence from Bangladesh or for his residence in any other country for a considerable number of years unless and until it is found that the particular citizen of Bangladesh abandons or renounces his citizenship of Bangladesh and acquired citizenship of another Country.

Annada Prasad Das Vs. Dy Commissioner & Ors. 9BLT (HCD)-456

Whether the suit for partition without a suit for declaration of title and possession is not maintainable.

Since both the parties accept Taherun Nessa as the original owner and since the contesting defendants could not prove by any documentary evidence that Teherun Nessa exhausted all her interest in the suit property, the plaintiffs claim of co-sharership with regard to .04 decimal of land and also their claim of ejmali possession cannot be brushed aside. The contesting defendant did not challenge the genealogy as asserted by the plaintiffs. In that view of the matter, the final curt of fact recorded a finding that after settlement and transfer Taherun Nessa retained .04 decimals of land in the jote and that the plaintiffs being the heirs of Taherun Nessa are in ejmali position in facts it is not necessary that the plaintiffs is to pray for declaration of title the recovery of possession but a simple suit for partition is quite maintainable.

Abdul Malek Khan & Ors. Vs. Begum Nurjahan Haque & Ors. 8 BLT (HCD)-274