Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh


Building Construction Act, 1952
Section/Order/Article/Rule/Regulation Head Note
Section 3B (5) (d)

Export Promotion Bureau did not obtain any right, title, interest or possession of the same–
Suo Moto Rule absolute by judgment and order dated 03.04.2011, holding that the 15 storied building constructed by BGMEA has been done on the water body illegally which is contrary to the master plan as well as the development plan of the Dhaka City in violation of Act XXXVI of 2000 and such construction cannot be allowed to remain in its position. Accordingly, the authority concerned was directed to demolish the said unauthorized building within 90 days. The High Court Division further held that ‘the money invested by the BGMEA in the construction of the said building can never be a ground to allow it to stay upright’. Thus it has ordered that ‘the BGMEA must return the money to those who bought flats/spaces in the said unauthorized building, as those transactions stand vitiated, within 12 months from the date of receipt of the claim. The flats/spaces buyers, can however, not, claim interest, because, they are guilty of contributory negligence as they had actual or constructive knowledge about BGMEA’s bareness of title and the illegality as to the construction of the said building’. .....Bangladesh Garments Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) =VS= Government of Bangladesh & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 142] ....View Full Judgment

Section 3

RAJUK cannot cancel the sanction for building construction without giving notice that due to mistake and misrepresentation the building plans were sanctioned and permission was given for construction.
Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakshya (RAJUK) and others vs Water Front Apartment Ltd and ors 56 DLR (AD) 16. ....View Full Judgment

Section 3B(l)(b),(3)(5)

No order of demolition can be passed under sub-section (5) of section 3B of the said Act unless a finding is given that the disputed construction answers the description contained in clause (a) or (b) or (c) of sub-section (5). This action was nothing but riding roughshod over the procedural safeguards guaranteed to the owners and occupiers.
The impugned order of the Authorised Officer lacks any legal basis and cannot be sustained.
Abdus Sattar (Md) vs Bangladesh and others 48 DLR (AD) 180. ....View Full Judgment

Section 9

The learned Judge of the High Court Division held that since a suit is pending between respondent No.4 and her two brothers for declaration of title, recov­ery of khas possession, cancellation of power of attorney and for cancellation of sale deeds the RAJUK has taken a reasonable and lenient view by merely passing the order of suspension of the construction work without cancelling the plan. Shafiuddin Miah & another vs, Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakhay (Latifur Rahman J) (Civil) I ADC 570 ....View Full Judgment

Section 12

While discharging the Rule for quashing the order of personal appearance the High Court Division directed the Authorised Officer, KDA to demolish the unauthorised construction in question which the appellant wants to expunge. While the proceeding under section 12(1) of the ‘Building Construction Act is still pending in the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Khulna and awaiting decision oñ merit as to whether any direction will at all be necessary upon the KDA to dismantle the alleged unauthorised construction which was not the subject matter under consideration before the High Court Division in the revision case and accordingly, the impugned unwarranted direction was expunged.
Champak Ranjan Saha vs Authorised Officer, Khulna Development Authority and others 2 BLC (AD) 110. ....View Full Judgment

Section 12(1)

Dismantling ordered in incidental proceedings— Improper- Liable to be expunged— When proceeding under section 12(1) is pending in the court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate awaiting decision on merit the order of the High Court Division directing dismantling the alleged unauthorised construction in criminal revision arising out of incidental proceedings is illegal and is liable to be expunged.
Champak Ranjan Shaha Vs. Authorised officer K D.A-. 1, MLR (1996) (AD) 449. ....View Full Judgment

Section 38 Sub-Section-5

In 1987 the appellant constructed a four-storied residential building as per sanctioned plan of the former Dhaka Improvement Trust and he has been living therein since 1987. On 5.5.94 the authorised officer of the Kartripakkha issued him a notice asking him to show him any sanctioned plan which he may have had in respect of the said four stoned building. The appellant showed cause on 7.5.94 after long seven months, the authorised officer of the Kartripakkha issued a notice on the appellant dated 21.12.94 asking him to show cause within 24 hours as to why his building will not be demolished after cancellation of the sanctioned plan for not keeping required spaces as per sanctioned plan, before the expiry of 24 hours the Kartripakkha by a Memo, dated 22. 12.94 referred to its earlier Memos dated 5.5.94 & 21.12.94 and stated that the appellant was directed to demolish/remove the construction outside of the sanctioned plan by those Memos, but he has failed to do so and as such his sanctioned plan is cancelled and the appellant was also directed to demolish the unauthorised construction immediately on receipt of the memo. Thereafter the appellant challenging the last order dated 22.12.96 - The High Court Division rejected the writ petition on the ground that the appellant admitted slight change of the boundary and as he was given an opportunity to explain his position the principle of natural justice was not violated—Held: No order of demolition can be passed under sub-section (5) of section 38 of the said Act unless a finding is given that the disputed construction answers the description contained in clause (a) or (b) or (c) of sub-section (5) the disputed building in fact does not fit in with the descriptions given on the said clauses (a) or (b) or (c) — The impugned order of the authorised officer lacks any legal basis and cannot be sustained. (Paras-10& 11)
Abdus Sattar Vs. Bangladesh & Ors 4 BLT (AD)-21. ....View Full Judgment