PUBALI BANK LTD. Vs. BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment dated August 1, 2005 passed in Civil Appeal No.85 of 1997 dismissing the same. The appeal was filed against the judgment dated April 10, 1997 of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.3396 of 1991 discharging the Rule obtained therein. The writ petition was filed challenging the legality of the Memo. No. 1221 (5) J, M, 60 dated 14.12.1991 of the Office of District Magistrate, Chittagong issued under the signature of the Magistrate, 1st Class, Sadar, Chittagong addressed to the Deputy Police Commissioner, Sadar Head Quarter, CMP Chittagong requesting him for placing police personnel for eviction of the appellant, herein petitioner, from the property of M/S. Lazaf Commercial Corporation Ltd. at 40, Shaheed Saifudding Khaled Road, Chittagong.

(2.) The property in question was taken over by the Government as abandoned property. The petitioner accepting the property in question as an abandoned property applied to the abandoned property authority for lease of part of the property in question and the abandoned property authority leased out the property (part) in question to the petitioner herein. The owner of the property challenged the action of the Government in treating the property in question as abandoned property and finally it was adjudicated that the property is not an abandoned property. The abandoned property authority while in compliance of the judgment passed declaring the property not an abandoned property took step for handing over possession thereof upon evicting the lessee of the abandoned property authority the petitioner challenged the action of the abandoned property authority taken for evicting him (petitioner) from the property in question. The petitioner challenged the action of the abandoned property authority before the High Court Division in writ jurisdiction but without any success.

(3.) As against the judgment of the High Court Division the petitioner filed appeal. This Court dismissed the appeal upon observing "In the background of the materials on record the undenied position is that the property in question i.e. the property possessed by the appellant and the other properties of the Respondent No.3 at one point of time although was taken over as abandoned property and managed by the abandoned property authority by allotting the same to the different organizations and person(s) including the appellant but the action of the abandoned property authority having been challenged by the Respondent No.3 and another it has been declared that the properties of the Respondent No.3 are not abandoned property and thereupon direction was made to release the property from the list of abandoned property. As such the moment it was held that the properties of the Respondent No.3 are not abandoned property, the abandoned property authority under the law is duty bound to return the property to the claimant upon removing the encumbrance created by it i.e. upon taking over possession from m person to whom the abandoned property authority allotted the property of the Respondent No.3 while managing the same as abandoned property and that in performance of the said legal duty the step taken by the abandoned property authority reflected in Annexure-D to the writ petition i.e. Memo, of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Chittagong dated 14.12.1991 has quite correctly been held legal by the High Court Division.