Section 2(h)
|
Conversion of parks and open spaces enjoyed by allottees of a plan township
cannot be converted as residential plots.
Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakhya and another vs Mohsinul Islam and another 53
DLR (AD) 79.
|
Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakhya and another vs Mohsinul Islam and another |
53 DLR (AD) 79 |
Sections 22 & 23, 29, 79(2), 93A & 93B—
|
Sections 22 & 23 (as amended), 29, 79(2), 93A & 93B—
Non—payment of compensation within one year from the date of decision of
the Government for acquisition of land as contemplated under section 12 of
1982 Ordinance does not render such land liable to be released in that
section 12 is not applicable to the facts of the instant cases which were
started long before the Ordinance came into force in view of the provision
of amended section 79 of the 1953 Act as no retrospectivity can be read
into section 12 of the 1982 Ordinance.
Jamir Ali (Md) and others vs Secretary, Ministry of Land & others 52 DLR
(AD) 176.
|
Jamir Ali (Md) and others vs Secretary, Ministry of Land & others |
52 DLR (AD) 176 |
Sections 22, 29(1), 79(2), 93A and 93B
|
Town Improvement Act, 1953
Sections 22, 29(1), 79(2), 93A and 93B
read with
Acquisition and Requisition of Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982 (II of
1982)
Section—12
Sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Town Improvement Act as amended by
section 22 of the Town Improvement (Amendment) Act, 1953 empowers RAJTJK to
dispose the acquired land by a sell, lease, exchange or otherwise and
sub-section (2) of section 79 provides that acquisition of any land or
interest in land for any scheme shall be deemed to be acquisitioned for
public purpose within the meaning of the Acquisition and Requisition of
Immovable Property Ordinance, 1982 and provisions of the Ordinance shall
apply to all proceedings relating to acquisition of property for such
purpose. Inspite of repeal of section 93A and 93B of the 1953 Act the
proceeding taken under these sections shall not affect such proceeding
although section 12 of 1982 Ordinance provides that where compensation has
not been paid or deposited within one year from the date of the decision of
the Government the proceeding of acquisition shall stands abated. Claim for
release of unutilized acquired land is not a vested right and nor failure
of the requiring body to utilize the land acquired within 3 years from the
date of acquisition in view of the decision of the Government creates no
constitutional or legal right in the petitioners who claim for release of
such land. Non-payment of compensation within one year from the date of
decision of the Government for acquisition of land as contemplated under
section 12 of the Ordinance does not render such land liable to be
released. Section 12 is not applicable to the facts of the instant cases
which was started long before the Ordinance came into force in view of the
provision of amended section 79 of the 1953 Act as no retrospectively can
be read into section 12 of the Ordinance of 1982.
Md. Jamir Ali and others Vs The Secretary, Ministry of Land & ors., 20 BLD
(AD) 245.
|
Md. Jamir Ali and others Vs The Secretary, Ministry of Land & ors. |
20 BLD (AD) 245 |
Section 40
|
Respondent had no vested legal right to have open space between her house
and the lake. There is no papers to show that the lake has been or is being
filled up for the project. The narrow strip of vacant land which is being
converted into plots is only an extension/addition of Gulshan residential
plots by altering the layout plan, and would not adversely affect the
environment of Gulshan or destroy the greeneries or the lake and that there
has been no change of the master plan either and hence the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court Division is set aside.
Chairman, RAJUK and others vs Parvin Akhter 7 BLC (AD) 167.
|
Chairman, RAJUK and others vs Parvin Akhter |
7 BLC (AD) 167 |
Sections 40, 40(b) and 40(h)
|
Section 40 of the Act provides for matters for improvement schemes which
may be undertaken by the RAJUK.
Section 40(b) empowers the RAJUK for "taking out or relaying out of the
land in the area. but it has no power to change the layout plan converting
the open spaces into residential or commercial plots.
RAJUK -Vs.- Mohshinul Islam 2 ALR (2013)(AD) 199
|
RAJUK -Vs.- Mohshinul Islam |
2 ALR (AD) 199 |
Sections 52 & 74
|
The writ petitioner allottee of the adjacent plot has no legal right to
resist creation of new plot or sub—plots and alloting those to others.
The writ petition is bad for defect of parties as the allottees have not
been made parties to the petition.
Syed Abdur Rahim vs Secretary, Ministry of Works, Government of Bangladesh
and others 53 DLR (AD) 106.
|
Syed Abdur Rahim vs Secretary, Ministry of Works, Government of Bangladesh and others |
53 DLR (AD) 106 |
Section 73(Cha)
|
Jurisdiction of Arbitration Court—
When notice of the Arbitration case was duly served upon the petitioner but
he wilfully did not contest, the petitioner can not challenge the impugned
judgment on ground of want of jurisdiction as the Sub-Judge was the only
Arbitration Court at that time in Dhaka.
Chairman, RAJUK Vs. District Judge and Arbitration Appellate Tribunal,
Dhaka and others 4, MLR (1999) (AD) 138.
|
Chairman, RAJUK Vs. District Judge and Arbitration Appellate Tribunal, Dhaka and others |
4 MLR (AD) 138 |
Section 74(2)
|
Town Improvement Act and Construction Act stand together—T.I. Act
authorities give final shape to the Master Plan and constructional details
of proposed building and its conformity to the Master Plan are done by an
Authorised Officer under the Construction Act—He cannot question any plan
sanctioned by T.I. authorities.
Refusal of the sanctioned plan by the Authorised Officer on the direction
of the Provincial Government unauthorized—Government could vest itself
with power for such refusal by resort to the provisions of Section 74(2) of
the T.I. Act.
Authorized Officer, D.I.T. Vs. A.W. Malik (1968) 20 DLR (SC) 229.
|
Authorized Officer, D.I.T. Vs. A.W. Malik |
20 DLR (SC) 229 |
Section 74(3)
|
Layout plan— Question of title— immaterial—
Sanction of the RAJUK in respect of layout plan of Housing Society need
not be dependent on title and possession in the land. Title is necessary
for actual construction of a building under the Building Construction Act,
1952. The principle of promissory estoppel is available by way of defence
against the Government and statutory body as well as against a private
individual. When public interests clash with private interests, it is the
former which will get the priority.
Grihayan Ltd. Vs. Government of Bangladesh. 1, MLR (1996) (AD) 187.
|
Grihayan Ltd. Vs. Government of Bangladesh |
1 MLR (AD) 187 |
Section 75(1)(2)
|
Sanction obtained under section 75(2) of the TI Act for erection of the
cinema— Authorised Officer cannot refuse it—Use of any land in
variation of the Master Plan has to be approved by the Chairman, and in
case of refusal by him by the Board of Trustees.
The respondent’s case was that sanction of the competent authority having
been obtained to the erection of the cinema, under section 75(2) of the
Town Improvement Act, it was not for the Authorised Officer to object, on
the assumption that the erection of a cinema would interfere with the
approved Master Plan. This contention was rightly upheld by the High Court
and sub-section (1) of section 75 of the Town Improvement Act declares that
if any person desired to use any land for any purpose other than that laid
down in the Master Plan, he may apply in writing to the Chairman for
permission so to do, and in case of refusal by the Chairman, appeal can be
taken under sub-section (2) of the section, to the Board of Trustees, whose
decision would be final. If resort has been made to this Section, ii is
obvious that the Master Plan must be deemed to have been altered, to the
extent permitted by the sanction accorded under this section.
Authorised Officer DIT Vs. AW Mallik (1968) 20 DLR (SC) 229.
|
Authorised Officer DIT Vs. AW Mallik |
20 DLR (SC) 229 |
Sections 78, 79 & 93A(4)(a)
|
Three modes of acquisition under the Act.
Under the terms of the Town Improvement Act, 1953 land can be acquired in
three ways under three different sections: One is by purchase on agreement
under section 78, the other is by compulsory acquisition under the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 under section 79 and third is
acquisition on requisition of land under section 93A(4) (a) of the Act.
Bangladesh Vs. Abdur Rashid & ors. (1980) 32 DLR (AD) 92.
|
Bangladesh Vs. Abdur Rashid & ors. |
32 DLR (AD) 92 |
Sections 80 and 88
|
A glance at the Town Improvement Act indicates that this Act does not
intend to exclude the function of court under the Land Acquisition Act if
no tribunal is set up under sections 80 and 82.
Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Mannan (1977) 29 DLR (SC) 27.
|
Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Mannan |
29 DLR (SC) 27 |
Sections 91A
|
The expression “shall be construed as referring to the Court under the
Land Acquisition Act” in s. 91A explained.
The point for consideration 8 what upon the true construction is the
meaning of ‘be expression “shall be construed as referring to the court
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894” in sec. 9A of the Town Improvement
Act. One way of interpreting it is to treat the court in this section to
mean tribunal under the Town Improvement Act, if the language of the
section could be so construed. But the language used does not lend support
to such a view. We can not apply the restrictive provisions of the Town
Improvement Act to the proceeding or award of the said court by treating it
is a tribunal under the Town Improvement Act. The expression “shall be
construed as referring to” is the well-known language employed by the
legislators in order to attract the provisions of an analogous enactment
into the Act without enacting them over again. We may call the device the
scissors and paste method. This explains the purpose.
Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Mannan (1977) 29 DLR (SC) 27.
|
Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Mannan |
29 DLR (SC) 27 |
Sections 91A and 93A
|
L.A. Act will be attracted when a court under this Act deals that matter
referred to in S. 93A of TJ. Act—Appeal lies against the decision of the
Land Acquisition Act acting under section 93A of the Town Improvement Act.
Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Mannan (1977) 29 DLR (SC) 17.
|
Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Mannan |
29 DLR (SC) 17 |
Section 93A, 93C
|
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 151 r/w Order VII, rule 11
The Town Improvement Act, 1953
Section 93A, 93C
Rejected plaint–– It is apparent that the instant suit was barred by
law. The provision of Order VII, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure is
not exhaustive and the said provision does not limit the inherent power of
the court to reject the plaint in a fit case. ––The learned Joint
District Judge, rightly rejected the plaint. The High Court Division erred
in law in entertaining the appeal inasmuch as on perusal of plaint it
appears that relief claimed therein was barred by the above quoted
provision law as such the plaint was liable to be rejected forthwith even
without asking the defendant to file his written statement since he
plaintiffs admitted in the plaint that the suit land was acquired by the
Government. Accordingly, the trial Court did same. ––The judgment and
decree of the High Court Division is set-aside. The plaint of the instant
suit is rejected. The Civil Petition is disposed of in the light of the
judgment and order of the appeal. .....Rajdhani Unnayan kartipakkha =VS=
Shamsunnahar, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 47]
....View Full Judgment
|
Rajdhani Unnayan kartipakkha =VS= Shamsunnahar |
14 LM (AD) 47 |
Section 93A (5)
|
If the concerned authority of the appellants find that full compensation of
the acquired property was not paid in accordance with sub-section (5)
section 93A, final assessment has to be made of the acquired land according
to sub-section (5) of section 93A–
The Appellate Division finds that full compensation of the requisitioned
property is not paid under that section. The learned Deputy Attorney
General for the appellants could not produce any paper to show that
compensation was paid to the respondent according to the provision of
sub-section (5) of section 93A of the Town Improvement Act. Therefore, the
appellants are directed to inquire into whether full compensation has been
paid as per provision of sub-section (5) of section 93A or whether
compensation has been paid on the basis of a provisional estimate prepared
on rough and ready calculation as per section 93B. If the concerned
authority of the appellants find that full compensation of the acquired
property was not paid in accordance with sub-section (5) section 93A, final
assessment has to be made of the acquired land according to sub-section (5)
of section 93A. .....Ministry of Land =VS= Haji Ashraf Ali & others,
(Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 228]
....View Full Judgment
|
Ministry of Land =VS= Haji Ashraf Ali & others |
1 LM (AD) 228 |
Sections 93A and 93B
|
In spite of repeal of sections 93A and 93B of the Town Improvement Act the
pending acquisition of disputed land shall be continued under the aforesaid
provision as if those have not been repealed. .....Ministry of Land =VS=
Haji Ashraf Ali & others, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 228]
....View Full Judgment
|
Ministry of Land =VS= Haji Ashraf Ali & others |
1 LM (AD) 228 |
Section 93
|
Provisions of the section explained. What is meant by section 93 of the
Town Improvement Act is that the correctness or regularity of any order
made or action taken under the said chapter can be called in question only
in the manner as laid down in chapter IC of the Act and it cannot be
challenged in a collateral proceeding in a civil court.
Dacca Improvement Trust Vs. Waliullah (1976) 28 DLR (SC) 150.
|
Dacca Improvement Trust Vs. Waliullah |
28 DLR (SC) 150 |
Section 93A
|
Compensation assessment by Land Acquisition Court acting under sec. 93A of
the Town Improvement Act not appealable—No revision to the High Court
would lie as the Land Acquisition Court acting under sec. 93A of T.I. Act
is not a court subordinate to the High Court.
Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Mannan (1977) 29 DLR (SC) 17.
|
Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Mannan |
29 DLR (SC) 17 |
Section 93A(5)
|
In respect of trees standing on the land acquired under the TI Act under
the provision of sec. 93A (5) of the LA Act which are applicable in such
acquisition the owner thereof shall be entitled to get compensation for
their market value at the relevant time.
Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Mannan (1977) 29 DLR (SC)7 17.
|
Bangladesh Vs. Abdul Mannan |
29 DLR (SC) 17 |
Section 93A(5)(b)(ii)
|
Tribunal under the Town Improvement Act in assessing compensation does not
possess the power to grant interest though the power is available when the
acquisition is under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. The question
is: could this power be exercised by the Court while acting as such under
the provisions of sections 91A of the Town Improvement Act, 1953. (1980) 32
DLR (AD) 92.
|
|
32 DLR (AD) 92 |
Section 93A and 93B
|
Acquisition of land under these sections must precede an order of
requisition—Reading the relevant provisions of the Act it is found that
sections 93A and 93B of the Town Improvement Act, 1953 are related to the
acquisition of land preceded by an order of requisition and they provide
almost a self-contained code for the specific purpose, the third mode of
acquisition under the Act.
Bangladesh Vs. Abdur Rashid (1980) 32 DLR (AD) 92.
|
Bangladesh Vs. Abdur Rashid |
32 DLR (AD) 92 |
Section 93A(4) (h)
|
In that view of the matter there is absolutely no scope for any release of
the requisitioned property by the Government. Even assuming that there may
be some decision of the Board but that was not acted upon in accordance
with law so as to release the property in favour of the original owners
thereof.
Abdul Huq & Ors. Vs Government of Bangladesh & Ors 13 BLT (AD)194
|
Abdul Huq & Ors. Vs Government of Bangladesh & Ors |
13 BLT (AD) 194 |
Section 93A
|
No restriction can be imposed on acquisition as to quantum of land for
development scheme.
There is no provisions for release of the land acquired for development
scheme under the Town Improvement Act. Delay in the implementation of the
scheme does not render ground for release of the land. The resolution of
the RAJUK has no statutory force. There cannot be any restriction for
acquisition of land only to the quantum allotted to the allottees.
Sacequeuddin Ahmed and others Vs. Jobea Ali and others. 3, MLR (1998) (AD)
91.
|
Sacequeuddin Ahmed and others Vs. Jobea Ali and others |
3 MLR (AD) 91 |
Section 93A(4)(h)
|
As per provisions of section 93A(4)(h) of the Town Improvement Act, 1953,
there is absolutely no scope for any release of the requisitioned property
by the Government. Apart from the provision under section 8B of the
Emergency Requisition of Property Act, 1948 for withdrawal from
acquisition, there is no provision in law for release of the property as
has been claimed by the petitioners as the land has been admittedly
requisitioned with a view to acquire the same for Greater Dhaka Development
Project by the RAJUK under specified project. Mere non-use of the acquired
land for the purpose for which it was acquired will not give any right to
get return of the same. Non-payment of compensation also is no ground for
release of the land acquired under the provision of Emergency Acquisition
of Property Act, 1948 or Town Improvement Act, 1953.
Abdul Huq and others vs Secretary, Ministry of Land and others 9 BLC (AD)
56.
|
Abdul Huq and others vs Secretary, Ministry of Land and others |
9 BLC (AD) 56 |
Section 101(1)
|
Under Section 101(1) of the Town Improvement Act, 1953 it is the absolute
right of RAJUK to deal with the property acquired for them. The release in
favour of the owners was rightly done. [Para-6]
Court of Wards Bhawal Raj Estate Vs. RAJUK 7 BLT (AD)-304.
|
Court of Wards Bhawal Raj Estate Vs. RAJUK |
7 BLT (AD) 304 |
Section 101(1)
|
Under Section 101(1) of the Town Improvement Act, 1953 it is the absolute
right of RAJUK to deal with the property acquired for them. The release in
favour of the owners was rightly done.
Court of Wards Bhawal Raj Estate Vs. RAJUK 7BLT (AD)-304.
|
Court of Wards Bhawal Raj Estate Vs. RAJUK |
7 BLT (AD) 304 |
Sections 102, 155
|
Town Improvement Act, 1953
Sections 102, 155
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 152 r/w General Clauses Act, 1897
Imposition of conversion fees–– RAJUK is a statutory body as per
Article 152 of the Constitution read with the General Clauses Act, 1897,
any delegated legislation [such as rules, notification or bye-laws] has to
be published in the Bangladesh Gazette. It is stated that any imposition
of conversion fees by RAJUK must be done through a delegated legislation
[Rules] duly promulgated pursuant to section 102 of the Act, 1953 and
published through gazette notification under section 155 of the Act, 1953
read with Article 152 of the Constitution and the provisions of the
General Clauses Act, 1897. Section 102 of the Act, 1953 empowers the
Government to make rules that are not inconsistent with the provisions of
the Act, 1953. In particular, under section 102(g) of the Act, 1953, the
Government is empowered to make rules for imposing fees in respect of any
matter. All kinds of conversion, development, improvement and expansion of
the Capital Dhaka City is governed under the authority of RAJUK pursuant to
the Town Improvement Act, 1953. So, imposition of conversion fees or
charges from residential to commercial building for approval is the
internal policy of RAJUK and the writ-petitioners leased the property out
to a commercial bank in 2008 which tried to make development in the
property. ––Appellate Division is constrained to hold that the
writ-petition filed by the writ-petitioners was not maintainable. This
petition is disposed of. The judgment and order dated 11.12.2017 passed by
the High Court Division is, hereby, set aside. .....Rajdhani Unnaiyan
Kartipakkha =VS= Begum Sitara Chowdhury, (Civil), 2023(2) [15 LM (AD) 102]
....View Full Judgment
|
Rajdhani Unnaiyan Kartipakkha =VS= Begum Sitara Chowdhury |
15 LM (AD) 102 |
Project: Ashiyan City Prokalpo–
|
Bangladesh Land Holding (Limitation) Order, 1972 (P.O.98 of 1972)
Sections 3, 4(d)
Private Residential Project Land Development Rules, 2004
Rule 8(1)
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
Section 20 r/w 90(3)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 114 & Order XLVII rule 1 r/w
Town Improvement Act, 1953;
Environment Conservation Act, 1995;
Environment Conservation Rules 1997;
মহানগরী, বিভাগীয় শহর ও জেলা
শহরের পৌর এলাকাসহ দেশের সকল
পৌর এলাকার খেলার মাঠ,
উন্মুক্ত স্থান, উদ্যান এবং
প্রাকৃতিক জলাধার সংরক্ষণের
জন্য প্রণীত আইন, ২০০০
Project: Ashiyan City Prokalpo–– It transpires that from the record
that the Deputy Commission earlier gave ‘No-objection’ in respect of
55.6 acres of land in favour of the review petitioner-respondent No.1 for
its project but it was entitled to retain only 33 acres of land as per
Bangladesh Land Holding (Limitation) Order 1972 (P.O. 98 of 1972) and
বেসরকারি আবাসিক ভূমি উন্নয়ন
বিধিমালা, ২০০৪ at the relevant time. It is
evidenced from the record that respondent No.1 got approval of other
authorities, including utilities such as Dhaka Electric Supply Company,
Dhaka Water Supply and Sewerage Authority, Bangladesh Telegraph and
Telephone Board and Titas Gas as well as the Fire Service and Civil
Defence, Dhaka Transport Coordination Board, Dhaka Metropolitan Police and
Water Development Board. ––Appellate Division is of the view that
review petitioner-respondent No.1 is entitled to proceed his project in
respect of 33 acres of land pursuant to the permission dated 25.09.2012 and
annexures ‘C’, ‘K’ and ‘M’ will be applicable only in respect
of the said quantum of land and permission of respective organizations.
.....Bangladesh =VS= Ashiyan City Development Ltd. , (Civil), 2024(1) [16
LM (AD) 486]
....View Full Judgment
|
Bangladesh =VS= Ashiyan City Development Ltd. |
16 LM (AD) 486 |
State necessity––
|
Government Building Act, 1899
Section 3
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 24, 27, 31 and 32
Town Improvement Act, 1953
Building Construction Act, 1952
(মহানগরী, বিভাগীয় শহর ও জেলা
শহরের পৌর এলাকাসহ দেশের সকল
পৌর এলাকার খেলার মাঠ,
উন্মুক্ত স্থান, উদ্যান এবং
প্রাকৃতিক জলাধার সংরক্ষণের
জন্য প্রণীত আইন, ২০০০)
State necessity–– Construction of the residences for the Speaker and
the Deputy Speaker–– The said residences are not meant for an
individual person, but for the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker who uphold a
unique position under the Constitution of our country and in the said way
the impugned project is being implemented for the public interest being the
same is a state necessity–– It appears that the said construction of
residences of the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker being for the public
purpose in the government land is exempted from complying with provisions
of other municipal laws. Therefore, the Town Improvement Act, 1953 and the
Building Construction Act, 1952 have no relevance with the construction of
the residences for the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker which are being
constructed on Government’s own land after obtaining clearances from the
Department of Architecture and on approval of the Prime Minister, the Chief
Executive of the Government as per approved plan. But the High Court
Division committed error of law failing to appreciate the said matter.
––It also deserves to mention here that the writ petitioners obtained
Rule and an order of stay of the operation of any further construction of
the impugned project in the High Court Division in Writ Petition No.3548 of
2003 on 18.05.2003. Against the order dated 18.05.2003 and 21.07.2003
passed by the High Court Division the writ respondents-appellants preferred
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal before this Division and obtained stay
operation of the said orders till disposal of the Writ Petition. During the
subsistence of stay order from this Division 100% of the construction work
of the residential building for the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker has been
completed. But the High Court Division without taking notice of the said
completion of the construction work made the Rule absolute by the impugned
judgment and order dated 21.06.2004 for which the interference by this
Division is warranted. .....Bangladesh =VS= Bangladesh Paribesh Andolon
(BAPA), (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 496]
....View Full Judgment
|
Bangladesh =VS= Bangladesh Paribesh Andolon (BAPA) |
13 LM (AD) 496 |