2. Acquisition and Requisition of immovable property ordinance
3. Sec 7 and 10 -Compensation has already been deposited  with the office

Sec 7 and 10 -Compensation has already been deposited  with the office

1. Update Time : May, 4, 2018, 12:38 am
2. 2849 View

Sec  7  and  10 –   Compensation has already been deposited  with the office of the Deputy   Commissioner   but the respondents could not receive the compensation because of pending litigation. So in regards of Sec  7  and  10 – the respondents cannot take the plea of no-payment of compensation Gazette notification has already been published and, as such, the disputed land vested in the Government free from all encumbrance. Government can only lease out the acquired land to the original owners at present market price.. Thus Sec  7  and  10 – of Acquisition and Requisition  mentioned  and  Government of Bangladesh ,represented by the Secretary, Ministry of land Vs  Sharifu Nesa (civil), 66  DLR (AD)  (2014) 274.

16 – proceeding cannot be challenged  in civil jurisdiction  but the title of the parties who are entitled  to compensation that can be decided by the civil  court.- Jamal Ahmed Vs. Md Humayan  Kabir (Civil)   19   BLC  (HCD)  (2014)  179.

Another Civil petition for leave to appeal No. 687 of 2007 was filed before this Division by Dhaka city Corporation challenging the same judgment which is impugned herein. By judgment an order dated 5-8-2008 this Division dismissed the said civil petition for leave to appeal upholding the judgment of the High Court Division. ….(7)  –Deputy Commissioner Vs. Md Habibur  Rahman Sunny (Mohammad imman Ali J) (Civil)  11  ADC (AD) 2014  762.  

Article 102 –   We have perused the writ petition, the annexures  and the impugned judgment. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the High Court Division upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the matter has held that the Dhaka City Corporation has allotted the shops to the members of petitioner  samity as per decision of shop allotment committee dated 31^st January, 2006; that members of petitioner samity were allotted some shops in gross violation of the judgment passed in writ petition No. 1068 of 2005; that as these allotments of the shops to the members of the petitioner samity were illegal ,the city corporation subsequently having realized this fact cancelled these allotments by the impugned notices; that these notices had been issued in accordance with the judgment passed in Writ petition No. 1068 of 2005; that as per decision dated 30^th January, 2006, the members of the petitioner samity were given permission to run there business in the temporary shops of the market and the Corporation gave allotment or permission to the members of the petitioner samity to carry on business  in  the temporary shops of the market in question in violation of the judgment in the High court Division…..4   -Motijheel Kancha Bazar Samity Vs. Dhaka City Corporation (Surendra Kumar Sinlia J)  (Civil),  11  ADC  (AD)  (2014)  94.

Artical  102 – Muhammad Younus, the High Court Division noticed section  14(4) of the ordinance  and the Regulations of 1993, and came to the conclusion that he was performing as an officer  of the Bank and therefore, his Service would be regulated by the Regulations of 1993, that after expiry of 60 years he was not legally entitled to continue as Managing Directing of the bank, that the resolution of the board dated 28 July 1999 allowing him to continue as Managing Director until the board decides otherwise without prior approval of the Bangladesh Bank provided in section 14(1) of the ordinance is illegal, as proof . Muhammad Younus Had been holding the office beyond the age of superannuation, the principle of audi alteram partem would not be applicable and that the other petitions had no locus-standi to maintain the writ petition challenging the impugned orders…..(13) – professor Muhammad younus vs. Bangladesh represented by the secretary (S.K. Sinhaj) (civil)  11  ADC  (AD)  (2014)  97.

Article  102 – Admitted the petitioner lessee has paid the entire amount within the prescribed period, mentioned an annexure-F to the petition issued by the chief estate officer of the petitioner and thereafter les see has began to knock on his door since 6-4-2006 annexure-1 to the petition and also issued saver all reminder in several occasions annexure-1,1(1),1(2),1(3),1(4) of the petition but of no effect……..(6) – Director General Bangladesh Railway vs Joynal Abed’m Mollah Mohammad Anwarul Hague  J) (Civil),  11  ADC  (AD)  (2014)   143

31- It is establish principle of law that a retrospective operation is not be given to a statute so as to impair an existing right or obligation……(para   8).  – Dhaka City Corporation vs District Judge, 2  CLR  (AD)  (2014)  167.