Abandoned Property In Case Of Admission And DeterminationWhere a relief has been prayed for a declaration that the schedule properties are not abandoned properties it cannot be said that such an amendment speaks of admission of the properties being abandoned (para 11), Mainur Reza, J.==*Nazibunnessa vs. Md. Abdus Sobhan Mia and others, BLC 70= 15 BLD 621.
The concept of Allotment is a new device of the modern government to give the right of enjoyment of the government property to give the right of enjoyment of the government property to a person on the terms and conditions mentioned therein which has its own distinct feature and uniqueness of its own and cannot be equated with the term Ô leaseÕ. I am of the view that the terms Allotment and Allottee cannot be synonymous to the terms of lease leasee as have been sought to have been argued by Mr. Haque. If the term Allotment I construed as lease then it will create unnecessary legal complications. Allotment of a government plot or a house either it is a khas land or an abandoned property means to give a right to a person to enjoy the same on certain conditions and by such allotment, no right to permanent nature for perpetual lease can be claimed = = *Bangladesh sugar and food industries Corporation vs. Md. Kashem and others, 55 DLR 350.
ABANDONED PROPERTY: ATTACHMENT: PRINCIPLE: Once the property assumed the abandoned character under President’s Order 16 of 1972 and having been in control and possession of the Government it cannot reassume the non–abandoned character after it had been transferred by the Government under the provision of law: in the afore -cited case considering the above legal provision it has been stated that once any property is declared or treated as abandoned property under the aforesaid Order it cannot be subjected to any legal process such as seizure, distress, attachment of sale by any officer of a Court or any other authority and further, that the Government cannot be divested or dispossessed of such property. In the instant case, nobody including the respondent bank took any initiative to claim the property or made any representation to the Government to release the property. Consequently, after the property was taken over as abandoned property it vested in the Government with all encumbrances and the Government disposed of the property by valid instrument to the Bangladesh Freedom Fighters’ Welfare Trust as abandoned property. Once the property assumed the abandoned character under president’s Order 16 of 1972 and having been in control and possession of the Government it cannot reassume the non-abandoned character after it had been transferred by the Government under the provision of law to the Trust. The defendants in the suit, the present petitioner, raised the preliminary objection in the written statement that the Artha Rin Adalat has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the suit is barred under article 14 of President’s Order 16 of 1972. (para 7). Bangladesh Abandoned property (Control management and disposal) Order, 1972 (PO No. 16 of 1972), Article 14, Bench Constituted with Md. Awalad Ali and Mir Hashmat Ali, JJ. (Judgment delivered by Md. Awlad Ali, J.), Writ Petition No. 687 of 2003== *Bangladesh Freedom Fighters’ Welfare Trust vs. Joint District Judge and Artha Rin Adalat, 56 DLR 641 (para 7). Relied on: Bangladesh represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Public Works and Urban Development vs. Md. Suruzzamal and others, reported in 48 DLR (AD) 1; Gannysons Ltd. vs. Sonali Bank and others, 36 DLR (AD) 146;
The next case on which reliance has been placed is Gannysons Ltd. vs. Sonali Bank and others, 36 DLR (AD) 14. Although the said case was decided in civil appellate jurisdiction but the principle laid down there was that under the provision of Article 14 of President’s Order 16 of 1972 no legal process including seizure, distress, ejectment, attachment or sale can be issued against the property vested in the Government as abandoned property. Article 14(1)