The High Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition challenging the legality of sections 9, 13, and 14 of the Vested Property Act, ruling that all future cases related to vested properties will now be handled by a relevant special tribunal.
The court also clarified that no such cases will be heard in any other court.
The bench of Justice Naima Haider, Justice Shahidul Karim and Justice SM Kuddus Zaman made the ruling after the final hearings in two related writs.
The court stated that sections 9, 13, and 14 of the Vested Property Act do not contradict fundamental rights. Vested properties will remain under the jurisdiction of the deputy commissioner, who may grant leases as necessary.
Senior lawyers Advocate Kamrul Haque Siddiqui and Advocate Mohammad Omar Faruk presented arguments in favour of the two writs in court.
Senior Advocate Monjil Morshed made arguments on behalf of the
Ministry of Land, assisted by Advocate Ripon Barai and Advocate Sanjoy Mandal.
Additional Attorney General Sheikh Mohammad Morshed and Deputy Attorney General Amit Das Gupta stood for the state.
During the hearing, the writ petitioner's lawyer, Kamrul Haque Siddiqui, informed the court that the right to property is a fundamental right and is guaranteed by the constitution. Therefore, no official or authority of the state or government can deny it.
He argued that the Supreme Court has always upheld its responsibility as the guardian of fundamental rights. He said the petitioners' fundamental rights have been violated by sections 9, 13, and 14 of the Vested Property Act, 2001, and thus these sections of the law should be deemed void.
On behalf of the Ministry of Land, Advocate Monjil Morshed argued that there was no legal reason for the petitioners to file the two writs.
The properties in question are vested properties and they can seek remedy by filing cases under the Vested Property Act, 2001, in the tribunal concerned, he added.
He further mentioned that both of them had already filed cases in the tribunal, where, according to Section 25 of the act, they could obtain any relief concerning those lands, including interim orders.
Monjil Morshed pointed out that the Vested Property Act, 2001, has established a special remedy through the tribunal, and, thus, if their civil cases are abated under Section 13, it will not cause them any harm.
The act empowers a deputy commissioner to lease out the properties listed in schedule ‘ka'; otherwise, these properties may face risks of ruin, destruction, and abandonment and there could be a loss of government revenue.
Additional Attorney General Sheikh Mohammad Morshed and Deputy Attorney General Amit Das Gupta, representing the deputy commissioners of Khulna and Chittagong, argued that the mentioned properties are vested properties and therefore, by law, have been listed in schedule ‘ka' according to the Vested Property Act, 2001.
Therefore, according to the Vested Property Act, 2001, the writ petitioners can seek redress through the tribunal, but they are technically challenging the law under judicial review to assert ownership of the properties. Therefore, the two cases should be dismissed.
They further added that if the civil suit is abated under Section 13, they suffer no harm because all redress can be given by the tribunal.
In the case, the secretaries of the Law and Justice Division and Ministry of Land, deputy commissioners of Khulna and Chittagong, along with 12 others, were made defendants.
