NAZMA AHMED Vs. BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nazma Ahmed and four other Writ Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 06.07.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 6187 of 2000 discharging the rule.

(2.) The petitioners instituted Writ Petition No. 6187 of 2000 stating, inter alia, that one Mrs. Rasheda Ashfaq took lease of the land measuring 19 katha and 7 satak at Plot No.5, Block-NW(D), Road 58, Gulshan Model Town, Dhaka for a period of 99 years with effect from 05.12.1963 and a registered deed of lease dated 25.02.1964 was executed to the effect with Dhaka Improvement Trust (DIT) now Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakhkha (RAJUK) and that she constructed a one storied building thereon and that being in possession of the property she transferred she represented the same to Sultan Ahmed husband of the petitioner No.1 by deed of conveyance dated 14.07.1972 and the name of aforesaid Sultan Ahmed was mutated in the records of Dhaka Improvement Trust and that the aforesaid Sultan Ahmed died leaving behind the petitioner Nos.1 to 4 as his successor-in-interest and that they have been in possession of the property peacefully and that they entered into agreements for sale on 14.06.1996, 09.09.1997 and 26.06.2000 in favour of the petitioner No.5 Mrs. Parveen Akhtar and took advance money from her and delivered possession of the property but to their utter surprise they came to learn that the property has been published in Bangladesh Gazette dated 23.09.1986 enlisting the property in the 'Kha' list as abandoned property, that the petitioners made representation to the Ministry of Works for deletion of the property from the list of abandoned property but to no effect and that they instituted Title Suit No. 163 of 1997 seeking declaration that the property was not an abandoned property but the plaint of the suit was rejected on 09.03.2000 as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred by Section 6 of Ordinance No. LIV of 1985. The petitioners therefore felt constrained to file the writ petition and a Rule was issued.

(3.) The rule was opposed by the respondents filing affidavit-in-opposition denying the claim of the petitioners and stating further that Mrs. Rasheda Ashfaq was a non-bengali and left Bangladesh and the alleged deed of transfer to Sultan Ahmed was a forged one and that on 28.02.1972 the building in question was found abandoned and as such has been enlisted by the Government as an abandoned property and that subsequent deed of transfer, if any, dated 14 July 1972 does not have any legal basis as aforesaid Mrs. Rasheda Ashfaq was not a citizen of Bangladesh and that the documents, produced by the petitioners with the writ petition were all fictitious documents created to grab the property and the claim of possession of the petitioners was also denied.