ACHYUTANANDA DAS Vs. GOVERNMENT OF BANGLADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition for Leave to Appeal at the instance of the petitioner is directed against the judgment and order dated 8-12-2004 passed by the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 3981 of 2003 discharging the Rule.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a citizen of Bangladesh by birth. The petitioner was born in 1927 and he was living in the homestead in plot Nos. 839 and 840 of Khatian Nos. 257 and 256 of Mouza Sylhet Municipality at Mahalla Roynagar in the Sylhet Town. The petitioner passed the matriculation examination in the year 1943 and passed intermediate in the year 1946. While he was working in Hardeo Glass Factory in Dhaka he left for the United Kingdom in 1957 to secure higher study. In the United Kingdom he got a job in the British Railway and thereafter in London Transport. In order to improve his efficiency he got admitted into the Institute of Transport, an institution incorporated by the Royal Charter in 1926 and after 4 years of his study he passed the Associate Membership Examination in May, 1961 and he was given the Associate Membership of the Institute of Transport on 12 March, 1962. The petitioner continued to serve in the London Transport and retired from service in 1989. The petitioner was granted citizenship of United Kingdom in December, 1965 and he got British Passport in 1966 as a citizen of United Kingdom. At the same time he is also a citizen of Bangladesh holding dual citizenship. The petitioner came to Bangladesh on the 1st August, 2001 and went to Sylhet to see his ancestral house and to renovate it and to reside there at the end of his life, and to his utter surprise he came to learn that the property has been declared as enemy property, now vested and non-resident property and the Government has taken up the management of his ancestral property. Thereafter, he instructed one of his relations to collect the papers regarding the property and left for United Kingdom on the 8th August, 2001. The petitioner again came to Bangladesh on the 15th January, 2002 and he made a prayer to the Deputy Commissioner, Sylhet on the 21st January, 2002 for release of the property from the list of vested property stating that the petitioner was never an enemy subject nor he was a citizen of any country with which the erstwhile Pakistan was at war and, as such, treating his property as enemy property or vested property is illegal and without jurisdiction.

(3.) Upon the said application to the Deputy Commissioner (Rev.) Sylhet Miscellaneous Case No. 40/2001-2002 was started and the Additional Deputy Commissioner called for a report from the Assistant Commissioner (Land), Sylhet, Sadar upon inquiry and the inquiry was held and the Assistant Officer, Land, Chak Sultanpur Union, Land Officer, Sylhet Sadar submitted a report to the effect that the land belonging to the petitioner comprising plot No. 840 has been declared an enemy property in VP Case No. 24/66-67 and the land of plot Nos. 838 and 839 has been declared an enemy property in VP Case No. 313 / 66-67 and those were leased out to the lessees and the Government is in possession of the said land. The Assistant Commissioner (Land), Sylhet having received the aforesaid inquiry report forwarded the1 same by his memo dated 5-4-2003 to the Upazila Nirbahi Officer, Sylhet Sadar and in his forwarding the Assistant Commissioner opined that the petitioner came to Bangladesh after retirement and he never left the country for good, but in view of the promulgation of AwcZ mw cZcY AvBb, 2001 (sic) the property cannot be released. The Additional Deputy Commissioner (Rev.) on the basis of the inquiry report rejected the prayer of the petitioner for release of the land from the list of enemy property (now vested property) by his order dated 24-4-2003. The petitioner claims that the petitioner's father purchased the property and after his death the petitioner and his elder brother inherited the said property. During last settlement operation the land has been recorded in the name of Sachidananda Das, the elder brother of the petitioner and the petitioner Achyutananda Das in equal share in the property, the petitioner having 0.79 acres of land in plot No. 840 and 0.7 decimals of land in plot No. 838 0.25 decimals of land in plot No. 839. Thus, the petitioner owns in total 0.53 decimals of land comprising of the aforesaid plots. As the brother of the petitioner, a co-sharer, died in India, the petitioner does not make any claim in respect of his brother's share.