Right to own (inherit) property is a basic right and neither an individual nor the State can snatch away this right arbitrarily. This paper has tried to illustrate the process how the minority Hindu community’s expected right on their properties has been abandoned which has caused a deep-rooted deprivation. The continuance of the Vested Property Act after the liberation war was contradictory with the spirit of freedom & liberty mentioned in our Constitution. Thus to ensure justice, upholding the equality, freedom, liberty & rule of law principles could provide us the best solution to this unjust act of the State.
As rightly said by Dr. Amartya Sen,
Development is a process of expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy. Development requires the removal of major sources of un-freedom: poverty as well as tyranny, poor economic opportunities as well as a systematic social deprivation, neglect of public facilities as well as intolerance or over activity of repressive states. There are five distinct types of freedom: political freedoms, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees and protective security.
Thus to ensure true humane development, these five types of freedom are essential; however Promulgation of the Enemy Property Act 1965 and its continuation as Vested Property Act even after the Liberation war of 1971 in Bangladesh actually have denied all the types of freedom and created an environment of widespread deprivation among the Hindu minority.The Article 27 (III) of the Constitution of Bangladeshstates that ‘All citizens are equal before law & entitled to equal protection of law’. If it is so, then why the former Enemy Property Act continued in Bangladesh even after the independence in different name! Moreover Article 02 (i) & (ii) of the Constitution of Bangladesh states that there shall be no discrimination against any citizen on the grounds for religion, caste, sex etc. However, the Vested Property Act already created the discriminatory framework against the minority Hindu community, which is also anti-constitutional. Furthermore, the Preamble of the Constitution upholds the aims of the State by aiming to secure peoples’ fundamental human rights, freedom, equality and justice; but after the war of independence the hope of this aim become lighter day by day; where the State itself promulgated an unjust, discriminatory framework against the minority Hindu community. According to Dr. Barkat, the law of vested property violates two conventional principles sanctioned by the law of the nations: (a) Every State should afford necessary protection to the property of an alien, (b) every State should grant to aliens equality before the law at per its own citizen. The State of Bangladesh has binding to honor these principles in accordance with article 25 (1) of the Constitution.
Historical Background: Law as a Tool for Repression
In Bengal, the environment of peaceful coexistence of both Muslims &Hindus started disappearing with the inception of the colonial ruler’s “division & rule” policy. The Bangavanga occurred in 1905 was the very first initiative to divide the united India which laid down the foundation of religious identity issue as a political mean for the first time. Later on, the “Two Nation Theory” (on the basis of religion, there shall be two states) finally strongly establish the religion identity issue as a political instrument in United India, which foundation was that stronger that still now three states (Bangladesh, India & Pakistan) could not able to overcome from this debauched policy’s shadow. According to Dr. Barkat, ‘the Muslims of east Bengal were misled by the active propaganda of Muslim league that by virtue of one’s religious belief, a Punjabi or an Uttar-Pradesh Muslim is closer to him than the next door neighbor who belonged to some other religion’. During this period, several communal riot were occurred which caused migration of Muslims from India to Pakistan and migration of Hindus from Pakistan (especially from East Pakistan) to India.There are several factors for this massive out migration of the Hindus such as Communal riots, Indo-Pak war of 1965 and Enemy/Vested Property Act. As mentioned by Dr. Barkat,
During Indo-Pak war of 1965, Government of Pakistan made an executive order named Enemy Property (Custody & Registration) Order II of 1965 following major parts, such as:
- India was declared Enemy Country (In other sense, Hindus=Enemies).
- All interests of enemy, i.e., the national/citizens of India, those residing in the territory occupied/captured/controlled by India – in the firms, companies as well as in the lands and buildings situated in Pakistan – are to be taken over by the custodian of Enemy Property for control or management.
- The benefits arising out of trade or business or lands and buildings should not go to the enemy, so that it may not affect the security of the state of Pakistan or impair its defense in any manner.
In 1968, the Supreme Court of Pakistan asked the Government to explain its viewpoint on the subject Act as the Court considered it as a political question to be answered by the Government of Pakistan;however, the Government later on did not formulate any viewpoint. The state of emergency was lifted throughout the country from 1965 till 1969 and it was expected that with the withdrawal of emergency, the Enemy Property Actwill also be void.Sadly, the government promulgated a new ordinance called Enemy Property (Continuance of Emergency Provision) Ordinance 1969! On 1969, Yahya Khan declared Martial Law and he cancelled the Constitution of Pakistan. For maintaining previous continuance of that draconian Act, previous Ordinance was incorporated with retrospective effect from 25 March 1969 and the discrimination against minority Hindu continued.On 1971, Proclamation of Independence was declared and the so-calledEnemy Property Ordinance was not fit with the spirit of proclamation thus hoped to be ineffective. But soon after the independence, Bangladesh Government promulgate Vesting of Property and Assets Order 1972 by which the properties left behind by Pakistanis and former enemy properties were combined in a single category. On 1974, Enemy Property (Continuance of) Emergency Provision (repeal) Act (Act XLV of 1974)was promulgated and all the properties of enemies were vested in the Government of Bangladesh under the banner of Vested Property. Though the principal aim of this act was to identify and take over the properties of those residents who left Bangladesh during/immediately after liberation war and/or took foreign citizenship, however sad to say, practically this act was used against the Hindu minorities mostly.
It is important to note that until the promulgation of Ordinance No XCIII of 1976, the vested propertieswere temporarily vested upon the Government for temporary protection. In November 1976, the Government of Bangladesh repealed previous Act No. XLVI of 1974 by Ordinance XCII of 1976. They also amended the Act XLV of 1974 by the Ordinance XCIII of 1976 with a retrospective effect.All the Acts prior to Ordinance XCIII of 1976 empowered the Government to become the custodian and to preserve the enemy properties in contemplation of arrangement to be made in the conclusion of peace with India.But the Ordinance XCIII of 1976 made the Government owner of vested properties instead of protector of the same!Thus, the government encroached the right of the ownership, which is a gross violation of the existing laws pertaining to the right to private ownership.It is very important to note that on 23 May 1977, the Government issued some instructions by Circular No. 1 A-1/77/156 RL directing the concerned officials that enemy properties in relation to lands and buildings vested in the Government shall be administrated, controlled, managed and disposed of in the manner as laid down therein. Moreover, tahshilders and other staff of state acquisition offices were even incentivized to find out new vested properties in the following words ‘on detection or furnishing any information leading to detection of any concealed vested property within their respective jurisdiction, may be suitably rewarded’.In effect unscrupulous tahshilderseven identified properties belonging to Hindus as vested properties although the owners were physically based in Bangladesh!The same approach could be seenunder the Defense of Pakistan Ordinance no. XXIII of 1965where the Government appointed a large number of Tahshilder/Assistant Tahshilder on commission basis to complete the task of enlistment within the shortest possible time.To understand the typology of cases, Dr. Barkat divided the issues into seven most important groups. About three-fourth of the affected persons (72%) reported that it was the local influential who, in connivance with the Tahshilder enlisted the property under VP and took the lease of it. Two-fifth of the affected person (46%) reported that it was the government officials (Tahshilder/Thana Revenue officer) who themselves grabbed the property. It can be said that during 1975-1990, it was the golden time for the Tahshilders, they either were incentivized from the Government if they enlist Hindus property as vested, on the other hand, they could earn some extra money from the Hindus as well, not to enlist their properties as vested, so in the both ways, they were beneficiated.
Nevertheless to say, these steps undertaken by the military dictators (1975-1990) had several dimensions, all related to the strengthening of the political base of the vested groups. First, the military rulers wanted to accelerate the process of Pakistanization and to eliminate the spirit of Bangalee nationalism build upon secularism that had been developed and enrooted through the war of independence.Second, the military dictators wanted to create a panic and insecurity feeling among the 9.7 million Hindus as they were considered as the bridge to the Bangalee nationalism, culture and spirit. Third, the military junta wanted to establish a strong foothold of the ruling government and the power mechanism with the local level power structure by providing them access to acquire vested properties in exchange of collaboration with the government. Fourth, military junta wanted to divert the attention of the economically rising strata of the society from the current socio-political development and being engaged in procuring the property of the emigrantHindus.It is to mention that in the context of a densely populated country like Bangladesh, it is considered to be a great opportunity to get a chance for further expanding the most scarce resource, the real state.It is likely to be said that such examples of encroachment of private property by the Government have created bad precedent and might be used against any lawful citizen at any time. To extend the view, we can see some common characteristics of the military rulers during 1975 – 1990. None of them has any political base, none of them was politically and ideologically committed to the nation and they have used Hindus as a trump card in politics. India was always portrayed as a potential threat to Bangladeshi economy and culture and to the religious faith of the majority Muslims. The honest andinherently secular feeling of the majority Muslimswas exploited through using “Indian Aggression Card” and by using the slogan “Islam is in Danger”. To non-Muslims, especially the majority within the minority – the Hindus were treated synonymously with “Hindustani Citizen” (Citizen of India), as was the case throughout the Pakistan period. Thus,the Act was used as an effective instrument towards the forced migration and extermination of the Bangladeshi Hindus.
In 1984, the President announced that here forth no new property would be declared as vested and the properties already enlisted as vested would not be disposed ofanymore; also the enlisted property shall be managed by the existing Hindu law of inheritance.DCs were directed with the presidential pledge but nothing was materialized!
In 1996, when AL came into power, the Hinducommunity leaders including KajalDebnath, Advocate Rana Das Gupta met the Prime Minister and theywere advised to meet Mr. RashedMosarraf, the Land Minister. They pledged to the land minister to stop the enlistment of the vested property and to dispose of all the properties. However, he stated that if Government took such initiative, all the persons who left Bangladesh in 1971 will come to Bangladesh to claim such properties. But, the Hindu community leaders urged that they want the certainty of their own properties, who are presently residing in Bangladesh. They are not advocating for the persons who left Bangladesh in 1971. Mr. Mosarraf could not able to give any assurance to them at that time. Finally, on 2000, Cabinet with Ministers undertook a major decision to return the vested property to their original owners.Accordingly,The Vested Property Repeal (Return) Act 2001was promulgated with several inconsistences at the last day of the Government; such as property vested by 16 February 1969 was defined as Vested Property according to the Act but there are a large numbers of the properties, which were declared vested after the said date. In addition, the act do not come up with any provision for providing compensation for which the property have been vested as permanent transfer/lease to some statutory organizations/individuals. Moreover, the term ‘definition of Owner’ was quite ambiguous where the continuous resident of Bangladesh could not claim such properties, even have the permanent citizenship! Furthermore, Hindu women were excluded from the inheritance in cases of death of the owner. Besides, the period of submitting claims to the tribunal was too short (90 days only after publishing the list of the properties).The question could be asked why in the last day Government promulgated the Act, who not in earlier period? The reason is quite clear that as the national election was there and AL need the support of the Hindu population to vote them, thus they promulgated such Act to justify their position that they are Hindu-friendly people and holds the idea of secularism still. Moreover, there could be an argument relating to the term “Continuous resident of Bangladesh’, whether this vague term has any legal basis or not;and whether the essence of the term ‘continuous resident of Bangladesh’ and ‘permanent citizen of Bangladesh’ are the same or not. Firstly, the person, who holds the permanent citizenship of Bangladesh can reside in USA/UK/India for any purpose (work/study etc.), but still s/he is the citizen of Bangladesh and the Government cannot snatch away his/her right by arguing that s/he is not the continuous citizen of Bangladesh. Moreover, the term ‘Resident of Bangladesh’ or ‘Citizen of Bangladesh’ has complete meaning, so it is unnecessary to put any adjective/adverb before those terms to make them complete. Nevertheless, our ancestors have done it several times such as Ayub Khan’s Moulik Gonotontro (Basic Democracy), JASOD’s Boigganic Somajtontro (Scientific Socialism), therefore AL carried out the practice as well.
On November 26, 2002, BNP cameinto the power and amended the Act. In the previous Act, there was a limited time for announcing the vested properties but after the amendment Government allowed unlimited time for publishing the list.In addition, they instructed to enlist the hidden properties, whichcould be enlisted as vested earlier. As a result, the problem raised again and since the enactment, Government has never been published the list of the properties.
In 2011, AL government while in power amended this Act where they set a time limit (120days) to dispose of the properties to its owners. But the administration could not able to prepare the list by this time, whereas they were instructed to prepare that before! Moreover, Government included the ‘Co-Sharer’ as the claimant party and replaced ‘Continuous resident’ term by ‘citizen of the country’ but introduced two Schedules/Tafshils (Ka Tafshil & Kha Tafshil). Ka Tafshil means which property is declared as Vested and Government holds the possession and Kha Tafshil means which property declared as vested but Government does not have the possession. Regarding Kha Tafshil, it was completely inconsistent with the Ain of 1974. However, in 2012 &2013, government amended the Act twice and under pressure by the civil society,Kha tafshil was repealed in 2013 (by Ditiyo Songsodhoni). Almost every time, the Ministry of Land tried to solve the issue by amending this Act but the result was zero. In my observation, Ministry of Land did not have the willingness to solve the issue (still now) rather they have experimented over the Act and tried to make the situation as complex as possible through amending the Act several times & publishing a bundle of gazettes. In 2014, in cabinet meeting, Land Minister again raised the issue to amend the Actbut almost all the ministers were surprised by watching that agenda in the cabinet meeting. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina stated that the problem is getting bigger day by day and mere amendment could not able to solve the issue. Other senior minister stated that in 2011, the Act was amendedto solve the issues and that time, in Government possession (according to Ka Tafshil), there was One Lac Eighty Nine Thousand Acor (189000 Acor) land but that amount become greater in 2014 (almost 215000 Acor).How the amounts become higher, it is a mystic issue, because the property was in possession of the Government. Moreover, according to Kha Tafshil, the estimated property was 442000 Acor but in 2014 the amount was almost 700000 acor!Furthermore, it was mentioned in the previous Act that if there is any dispute relating to Ka Scheduled property, the matter shall be solved by the Court (Tribunal) but in terms of Kha Sechduled property, the matter shall be solved politically (through union parishad committee).
When the Government repealed Kha Tafshil, it was predicted that the people will get their properties whose properties was enlisted in Kha Tafshil and Government instructed to mutate the land in their own names just like as the normal proceeding, but while doing so, people have faced many artificial difficulties from the Land Officials. In addition, according to the Act, if any party is aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal (dispute relating to Ka Tafshil), they can apply to the Appellate Tribunal and its decision would be final and DC shall deliver the property. Buteven after getting the Judgment from the Appellate Tribunal, while applying before DC, he could not able to deliver the property! Moreover, several DC made application to the Land Ministry to know their opinion whether they shall release the properties or not. The Land Ministry directed them by mentioning that if there is no bar to the law, the DC can release the property. Question comes, whereas theAppellate Tribunal’s Judgment would be final, even after that why the executives such as DC has to check whether there is any bar to the law or not to release such? It is completely a matter of Contempt of the Court. When the ministry has been informed about this mistake, they corrected their position and instructed DCs to release the properties. Again, after getting the instruction, DCs made an application to the Law Ministry and the law minister suggested that there is no option to apply for Civil Revision but if the concerned executive (DC) is aggrieved; they can file a Writ petition!So question may come that who will file the writ petition against whom? So while questing on this matter, the Law Minister said it is not an instruction/order, but merely an advice (onusason)! However, all the DC has considered this onusason as an (unofficial) order and for this Onusason, they are not releasing any property and the deprivation continued.
Court’s Observation &Present Scenario
In SajuHossain and others vs. Bangladesh & other, the Court held that the law on enemy property itself died with the repeal of Ordinance 1 of 1969 on 23.3.1974 by Act XLV of 1974 and accordingly, no further vested property case can be started on the basis of law which is dead.Moreover, inAdditional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Dhaka vs. Md. Mostafa Ali Mridha & others, Court held that there is no scope starting any VP case under the provision of the Ordinance no. 92 of 1976 and if any proceeding is started for treating a property as vested property, that will be absolutely without jurisdiction. Furthermore, in Aroti Rani Paul vs. Sudarshan Kumar Paul, Court held that with the repeal of Ordinance no.1 of 1969 on 23-3-74, no further vested property case could be started thereafter on the basis of the law which is already dead.But even after those judgments, no scenario has been changed & Tahshilders are enlisting Hindus properties as vested still; in addition no property has been released yet!It is to mention that, the judgment of the Supreme Court shall be binding unanimously upon all including the Government under Article 112 of our Constitution. But here we can see a grave violation of Constitution as well!
Finding on Faridpur District* (April/16 to June/16 – Report on the cases relating to Ka Scheduled Property):
Source: Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Faridpur District, Bangladesh
*See Annex 1
It is really a matter of grave concern that in a single district, there is 2511 cases pending and a very little amount of cases has been solved but property has not been released yet!Even though there is Law, Judgments, Directions to dispose of the properties but for an unknown artificial reason, some of the executives are not releasing those and the deprivation continues.
It is to mention that the common Muslims in this country were never communal and there is still a religious harmony among them.However only a few Muslims were involved in grabbing the properties from Hindus. According to a study, conducted by Dr. Barkat, 536,950 Muslims are the direct beneficiaries of 2.6 million acres of properties of 1,150,606 Hindu households affected by VPA.Moreover,most of them were politically affiliated wherethe people who were affiliated with BNP acquired 67.3% of the vested property andthose who were affiliated with Awami League occupied 13.9%.
Features of the Vested Property Repeal (Return) Act 2001
As mentioned earlier that the Awami League government wished to return back the vested properties to the owner but the initiative failed by the amendments done by the BNP government. However, I am going to discuss the features of the act:
- As per the section 5 of the Vested Property Return Act 2001, which property are enlisted as vested become returnable to its owner or successor in interest.Moreover, according to section 15, if there is any public welfare property which were previously declared as vested will be returned to the managing committee.
- Some properties are prohibited to be enlisted under section 6. The property might be declared asnon-vested by the Court before enactment of this act; or the property which has been released from the list of vested properties by the caretaker; or which have been vested as permanent transfer or permanent lease to some statutory or other organization or any individual; or which are shared or sort of securities of some companies; or which are acquired in people’s interest and become vested thereby.
- According to section 8, until the property is not disposed upon the real owner, the property cannot be handover by sell, gift, mortgage and in other form; if someone does so, the subsequent transfer/handover shall be treated as void.
- According to section 9, the government shall publish the list of the properties through Gazette notification and the list will include detailed description of the mouza wise transferable properties as well as all the relevant information of returnable public welfare properties and while doing that Govt. will broadcast this notification through media.However,according to sub section 6, if there is any property, which are not included in the publication that will not be considered as vested and Government shall not have any responsibilities on that!
- Owner of the property can apply for return or release of vested property under section 10. After the publication of the list, applicant has to apply before Tribunal within 90 day and attach all the papers.
- Regarding implementation of the decree, section 11 states that the Tribunal will send the copy of the judgment & decree to DC after 45 days of the preparation of the decree and DC will make necessary arrangement for the implementation of the decree. If the property is under the direct control of the government, DC will return it back or may make payment in case of acquisition, without making any delay.Moreover, if the possession of the property remains under any individual/institution, DC will serve the notice to leave off and after 30 days, if they do not leave off, the DC shall demolish the establishment by exercising power.
- According to section 14, if the government has given temporary lease of the returnable property, the said lease will be repealed and possessor shall handover the property to DC.
- There could be some returnable public welfare properties like Debottor/ Mauth/Cremation/Graveyard/trust/charitable institution with the aim of doing public welfare by any private initiative or religious institution or managing committee. According to section 15, any of the mentioned person or any local person of the concerned community may appeal to DC for releasing such property within 180 days after the gazette notification.
- According to section 16, the government after publishing the list, set up one or more Tribunal in each district, also to establish one or more Appellant Tribunal for settlement of appeal. According to section 16.4, the tribunal shall be set up with a district judge or any judge, ranking equivalent to additional district judge; and according to section 19.3, the Appellate tribunal could be set up by any retired judge of the Supreme Court.
- Conferring to section 10, if there is no application for release of the returnable vested property or for payment or if the application has been rejected by the Tribunal, the property shall be considered as Khas property of the government. As per section 26, the government will get the right to sell/ handover/ use/ settle the property as it considered necessary.
- As per section 28, due to enlisting any property as vested or due to return/release or settlement/ undertaking any kind of action under this act, no one shall have the right to claim compensation for the property or for income /benefit received by government or any individual or institution out of the property.
- According to section 29, if someone has been affected by any activities done in good faith under the Vested Property Act/this Act/Rule, this Act does not permit anybody to undertake any civil, criminal or other legal proceeding against the Government, Tribunal, Appeal Tribunal, any justice of these Tribunals or any official of the Government.
Any kinds of drastic change to resolve the matter could create more problem than the actual problem itself thus the solution has to be formulated based on the objective understanding of the historically formed sociocultural values and mindset of the people.Currently the religious issues become very hot topic in Bangladesh. Radical groups are attacking the minority groups frequently and the law enforcing agencies could not even trace anything properly. The unstable situation relating to religion stated from the recent High Court’s decision regarding the State Religion and somehow anti Hindu and anti-Indian slogans become very much common within this time frame. So if the government has to do something, they have to understand the current status of the people’s mind set so that the minority community does not trapped once again due to the initiative of returning back their properties. However, we have still some of the specific, achievable, realistic solutions after several analyses of the present socio cultural values and political aspects. They are:
- The amendments held in 2002 was contradictory to the spirit of returning the property to the affected Hindu minority, thus the act should reform accordingly.
- All the properties vested after the promulgation of the Vested Property Repeal Act 2001 has to be declared unlawful and has to be returned to the original owner without any delay.
- In 2007, government identified 0.7 million acres of vested lands 61 out of the 64 districts, although identified land is four times less than the study done by Dr. Barkat. So the government in compliance with the non-government organizations has to prepare a proper list of the vested property. By this time, whatever they have identified, they have to publish this into Gazette.Furthermore, a full-furnished list with details of the property, location, name of the party, address, amount of land, year of dispossession has to be published in accordance with the list.
- All the properties under the custody of the government, which are identified as vested, should be leased out to the real owner or their legal heirs and it has to be done in accordance with the law of inheritance.
- Properties fall under section 6.3 of the Act has to be repealed and all the permanent leasing out of vested properties has to be declared as unlawful and void. If the property is acquired for public interest, the owner should be given proper, prompt and adequate compensation.
- If the male heirs of the property are absent, the property has to be returned to its female heirs who are permanently residing in the country.
- The state can think about some compensation payment to the affected families due to the Act.
- Section 14 of the Act should be reformed by giving DC the only power to keep the property until disposing of. They should not be given the power to provide permanentlease, the government has to limit their power by mentioning that they only can give temporary lease.
- Government has to follow the Judgment of the Supreme Court accordingly and all the artificial difficulties has to be sort-out to make a solution. Government need to focus more on implementing the laws & orders, rather amending the Act.
TheVested Property Act is an anti-constitutional, discriminatory, barbarian and in evident a black law, which is certainly evident through its conduct and application over the minority Hindus. Two thing we have to remember that ‘Absence of arbitrary power is the first essential of the rule of law upon which our constitution system is based and law does not mean anything that Parliament may pass’.Thus, the law must be non-discriminatory, it has to be reasonable and uphold the liberty and equality of the people. The state itself cannot discriminate any of its minority groups through any Act like VPA as the law contradicted with the basic intention of the Constitution. Therefore, there must not be any further ambiguity relating to the return of the vested properties to its original owner and the government has to take necessary steps through providing a realistic procedural framework where people can get the availability of justice.
- Barkat, Abulet al (Ed),An Inquiry into Causes And Consequences Of Deprivation Of Hindu Minorities In Bangladesh Through The Vested Property Act: Framework For a Realistic Solution (PRIP Trust, 2000)
- Barkat, Abul et al, Deprivation of Hindu Minority in Bangladesh: Living with Vested Property (PathakShamabesh, 2008)
- Barkat, Abul et al, Political Economy of the Vested Property Act in Rural Bangladesh (Association for Land Reform & Development, 1997)
- Dasgupta, Abhijit et al (Eds), Minorities and the State: Changing Social and Political Landscape of Bengal (SAGE, 2011)
- Islam, Mahmudul, Constitutional Law of Bangladesh (Mullick Brothers, 3rd Ed, 2012).
- Sen, Amartya,Development as Freedom (Alfred A Knopf,1999)
- Aroti Rani Paul vs. Sudarshan Kumar Paul (2002) 56 DLR (AD) 73
- Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Dhaka vs. Md. Mostafa Ali Mridha& others (1993) 48 DLR 193
- SajuHossain and others vs. Bangladesh & other (2006) 58 DLR (AD) 177
- Government of The People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Land Administration and Land Reforms Division, Instruction for Administration, Management and Disposal of Vested Property, Circular NO. 1A-1/77/156-RL., Dated 23rd May 1977
- Trivedi,Rabindranath, The Legacy of Enemy Turned Vested Property Act in Bangladesh (29th May 2007) Asian Tribune <http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/5925>
- OrpitoSompottiProttarponAin 2001 (In English: The Vested Property Return Act 2001)
- The Constitution of Bangladesh
- The Requisition of Property Act 1948
- The Enemy Property Custody and Registration Order 1965
- The Enemy Property (continuance of Emergency provision) Ordinance 1969
- The Vested and non-resident Property (Administration Act 1774)
- The Vesting of Property and Assets Order 1972
- The Enemy Property (continuance of Emergency provision) Ordinance (Repeal) Act 1974
- The Vested and Non-resident (Administration) (Repeal) Ordinance 1976
- Rajib, AshrafulHaq, ‘Ekbar Na ParileDekhoChhoybar’, KalerKontho (Dhaka), 11 November 2014, 1
- ‘OrpitoSompottiProttarponeNirdeshonaNiyeProshno’, ProthomAlo (Dhaka), 19 January 2016, 5
- OrpitoSompottiProttarponAinBastobayonJatioNagorikSomonnoy Cell, ‘Appeal TribunalerRaayBastobayoneGorimoshi o ProttarponProkriyaBadhagrosthokorarProtibadeSongbadSommelon’ (Press Statement, 21 June 2016)
- OrpitoSompottiProttarponAinBastobayonJatioNagorikSomonnoy Cell, ‘Appeal TribunalerRaayBastobayon Na koraBorong Ta Karjokor Na KorteAinMontronaloyerNirdeshonaJarirProtibadeSongbadSommelon’ (Press Statement, 18 January 2016)
- OrpitoSompottiProttarponAinBastobayonJatioNagorikSomonnoy Cell, ‘OrpitoSompottiProttarponAin 2001 erSongsodhonirSongkot o Jonodurvog’ (Press Statement, 09 July 2013)
Barkat, Abul et al, ‘Impact of Vested Property Act on Rural Bangladesh: An Exploratory Study’ (Research Report, Association for Land Reform & Development, 1996)
AmartyaSen, Development as Freedom (Alfred A Knopf, 1999) xii-3.
AbulBarkat et al, Deprivation of Hindu Minority in Bangladesh: Living with Vested Property (PathakShamabesh, 2008) 29.
AbulBarkat et al (Ed), An Inquiry into Causes and Consequences of Deprivation of Hindu Minorities in Bangladesh through the Vested Property Act: Framework for a Realistic Solution (PRIP Trust, 2000) 24-5.
Barkat, above n 2, 45.
AbulBarkat et al (Ed), Political Economy of the Vested Property Act in Rural Bangladesh (Association for Land Reform and Development, 1997) 41.
Barkat, above n 15, 41.
Government of The People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Land Administration and Land Reforms Division, Instruction for Administration, Management and Disposal of Vested Property, Circular NO. 1A-1/77/156-RL., Dated 23rd May 1977, para 34.
 Rabindranath Trivedi, The Legacy of Enemy Turned Vested Property Act in Bangladesh (29th May 2007) Asian Tribune <http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/5925>.
Barkat, above n 2, 90.
Barkat, above n 15, 41.
Barkat, above n 2, 51.
AshrafulHaqRajib, ‘Ekbar Na ParileDekhoChhoybar’, KalerKontho (Dhaka), 11 November 2014, 1.
 ‘OrpitoSompottiProttarponeNirdeshonaNiyeProshno’, ProthomAlo (Dhaka), 19 January 2016, 5.
SajuHossain and others vs. Bangladesh & other (2006) 58 DLR (AD) 177.
Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) Dhaka vs. Md. Mostafa Ali Mridha& others (1993) 48 DLR 193.
Aroti Rani Paul vs. Sudarshan Kumar Paul (2002) 56 DLR (AD) 73.
Barkat, above n 2, 173.
Mahmudul Islam, Constitutional Law of Bangladesh (Mullick Brothers, 3rd Ed, 2012) 84.