The Supreme Court in the full text of a verdict expunged some opinions, directions and observations delivered earlier by the High Court in the case of vested property, including compensation to the original owners.
The High Court had directed the government to pay sufficient compensations to the original owners of vested properties now under the government’s possession. As a result of the apex court’s verdict, the owners will no longer need to be compensated.
“Thousands of crores of money will be saved through the apex court’s verdict. If compensation were to be paid to the original owners then thousands of crores of money would have to be paid for the property value of thousands of acres of vested property which is in possession of the government,” said Manzil Morsed, a lawyer for the Ministry of Land in the case.
In its verdict, the apex court declared all actions and decisions in making any property vested after March 23 in 1974 to be illegal.
The 34-page written verdict of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court was released recently, Manzil Morsed said on Saturday (August 20).
A four-member bench of the Appellate Division, headed by Chief Justice Hasan Foez Siddique, delivered the verdict. The three other judges of the bench are Justice Md. Nuruzzaman, Justice Borhanuddin and Justice M Enayetur Rahim.
In the full text of the verdict, the apex court said that the government may utilise unclaimed vested property for the development purposes, that is for the betterment of people. However, any attempt to enlist any property as vested in the future will be illegal.
The apex court expunged directions and observations of the High Court in this regard, citing that since a law is already there, those directions and observations were not needed.
The properties of the people from minority communities, who left the country between 1965 and 1971, were considered enemy property and the same properties are now treated as vested property.
“... the government enacted ‘The Vested Property Return Act in 2001 and amended it 2013 to deal with the vested properties fairly and reasonably in accordance with the law. As such there is no necessity to issue directions upon the government regarding the vested properties,” the Appellate Division bench observed in the 34-page verdict.
On June 2, the SC bench delivered the short verdict in an appeal filed by the Ministry of Land challenging the judgment of the High Court in the case.
The High Court delivered its judgment on November 23 in 2017 following a writ petition. Abul Hye, a former government employee, filed the writ petition in public interest challenging the Vested Property Act.
The Ministry of Land filed an appeal challenging judgment and after the hearing, the Appellate Division gave its verdict on June 2.
In its judgment, the High Court had issued several directives for properly and quickly settling ‘enemy property’ cases and ordered public officials not to make any attempt to include any property in the official gazette as vested.
The SC judges observed that sections of the 2001 law deal with establishment of necessary tribunals at every district, compensation, time-frame for delivering judgment, and return of properties.
Interpreting the court’s observations, according to Manzil Morsed, the Vested Property Return Act has been upheld by the Appellate Division judgment, as this law has protected the interest of people as well as the government.
He said that separate tribunals have been set up for disposal of the applications involving vested properties under the Vested Property Return Act.
Manzil Morsed also said that the essence of most of the High Court’s directives and observations was in the Vested Property Return Act, and therefore, there was no need for the directives.
The government has included the vested properties in the list in the law in line with the Appellate Division’s previous directives.
Any claimant can seek redress from tribunals about vested properties, except for the ones where institutions, including schools, colleges, universities, madrasas, mosques, and temples have already been established.
Manzill Morsed said the government issued a gazette notification on March 23 in 1974 for the management of vested properties, which was upheld by the Appellate Division in its verdicts later on.
The legislature may enact a law to give sufficient and just compensation to a lawful claimant in lieu of returning the property that has already been made non-returnable, the HC had observed in its 2017 verdict.
