NASIRUDDIN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal a question of some public importance is involved, in that whether the learned Judges of the High Court Division were well founded in law in directing the abatement of a writ petition in view of sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 5 read with paragraph 4 of Martial Law Regulation No. VII of 1977. This order of abatement was recorded along with some other writ petitions.

(2.) It is to be observed that the learned Judges did hot refer to the facts involved in any one of the writ petitions before them and decided the question of the application of aforesaid Martial Law Regulation on them. Facts in brief are that Md. Ahmad Hasan got a lease for 99 years from the Government in 1963 of plot No. 10-A/4-6, Mirpur Housing Estate, Dacca with a house standing thereon, and obtained possession in the same year. Appellant Nasiruddin on 13-10-71 entered into a contract to purchase the property with the owner lessee and in part performance of the contract got possession of the premises. The contract was not completed by sale and after liberation the appellant brought Title Suit No. 95 of 1975 in the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge, Dacca, impleading the Government of Bangladesh, which was decreed ex-parte on 5-12-77 and in execution a sale deed was registered through Court. Earlier to that on 17-10-77 Martial Law Regulation No. VII of 1977 was promulgated. The appellant filed writ petition No. 296 of 1978 challenging a notice being Memo No. AP-18-Sakha(a)/77/205 dated 21-3-78 issued by Abandoned Property authority asking him to hand over possession of the property in default he will be liable to be evicted. The writ petition along with other writ petitions was taken up for hearing on 13-12-79 when the order set out above was made and so far as the appellant is concerned the order is under challenge.

(3.) M.T.H. Khan learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that his writ petition did not abate and it continued so that the appellant could establish his case which he has set up in his writ petition. It is, however, to be observed that no affidavit-in- opposition was filed as the writ petition was alleged to have abated. The contention of Mr. Khan requires consideration.