Challenging the inaction of the writ respondents in disposal of the application–– The local people are now using the pond as a Garbage Bin by throwing wastes and hazards in the pond and using the pond for discharging sewerage therein which are damaging heritage of the historical Monthon Pond and on the other hand, the Fire Service and Civil Defence has taken initiatives to renovate the pond by making walkways around the pond, for using the same for swimmers training purposes with a view to explore training, experiences and skills of the firemen. ––The leave petitioner is allowed to use the pond for ‘জরুরী and সুইমিং ট্রেনিং‘ purpose only and for that purpose be entitled to set up Swimming Pool, Water Rescue and Divers Training for the purpose of using the same by the Bangladesh Fire Service and Civil Defense directly. The District Administration Office is directed to supervise such construction/there any construction and conversion accordingly. .....Bangladesh Fire Service & Civil Defence =VS= Committee for Protection of Monthon Pond, (Civil), 2023(1) [14 LM (AD) 637] ....View Full Judgment

As such pursuant to the non-obstante clause incorporated in section 3 of the "Joladhar Ain 2000" as well as section 2Ka of the Environment Conservation Act 1995, both the laws shall pre-vail over any other law prevailing in the country for the time being in force. Thus the prohibition imposed by section 5 of the Joladhar Ain and section 6(Uma) of the Environment Conservation Act shall automatically come into operation and any violation of the said prohibi-tion shall be dealt with in accordance with sec-tion 8 of the "Joladhar Ain," as well as section 15 of the Environment Conservation Act 1995. President BGMEA Vs. Bangladesh and others (Civil), 5 (2) LNJ 107

Joladhar Ain 2000(Act XXXVI of 2000)
Sections 2(Cha), 3, 5 and 8: And
Environment Conservation Act, 1995
Section 2(ka ka), 2(Ka), 6 (Uma) and 15:
We perused the Dhaka Metropolitan Development Plan, VOL-II Urban Area Plan (1995-2015) published in the Gazette notification vide SRO No. 91-AIN/1997 on 05.04.1997, commonly known as “Proposed Master Plan”, wherein the “Begumbari Khal” has been recorded and recognized as a “Joladhar”. Side by side the registered deed in favour of EPB executed by the Bangladesh Railway Annexure K-2, in its schedule clearly mentioned the transferred property as “Doba”-(waterbody) which attracts Section 2(Cha) of the “Joladhar Ain 2000” as well as section 2(ka ka) of the Environment Conservation Act. As such pursuant to the non-obstante clause incorporated in section 3 of the “Joladhar Ain 2000” as well as section 2Ka of the Environment Conservation Act 1995, both the laws shall prevail over any other law prevailing in the country for the time being in force. Thus the prohibition imposed by section 5 of the Joladhar Ain and section 6 (Uma) of the Environment Conservation Act shall automatically come into operation and any violation of the said prohibition shall be dealt with in accordance with section 8 of the “Joladhar Ain,” as well as section 15 of the Environment Conservation Act 1995. In such view of the matter the transfer/allotment of the water body by EPB to BGMEA and consequently the change of the nature and character of the said water body (“Joladhar”) by BGMEA is completely violative of the said two laws and as such the violators are liable to be punished with imprisonment and fine and such illegal construction is liable to be demolished for which BGMEA or any other person is not liable to get any compensation. …BGMEA Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] AD 70 ....View Full Judgment

Writ petition in public interest, impugn­ing the continued failure by the government and other public authorities,in par­ticular the respondent No. 1 to comply with their legal duties under the existing laws including the Environment Conservation Act 1995 and the Environment Conservation Rules 1997 in taking action, inter alia, to seal tube-wells contamined with arsenic and to test water quality and to ensure that the contents of arsenic in the groundwater did not exceed a particular quantity as noted in the Environment Conservation Rules 1997.......... (2) Rabia Bhuiyan, M.P vs. Ministry of Local Government (Md. Tafazzul Islam (Civil) 5ADC 1

Lease of Lands in Hotel/Motel Zone of Cox’s Bazar–
The policy of preservation of the ecological balance and protection of the natural resources of our country not only for our future generations, but also to ensure protection of the environment from degradation and the harmful effects of climate change.
All leases within Jhilanja Mouza granted after 19.04.1999 be cancelled in the same way as those of the writ-petitioners and any constructions made thereon be demolished. Of course, the lease holders shall be compensated for their loss due to such cancellation/demolition. We further direct that henceforth no lease shall be granted within Jhilanja Mouza or any area which has been classified as ecologically critical area.
We finally re-iterate that the petitioners shall be fully compensated for their loss due to the cancellation of their leases, in accordance with the decision of the High Court Division. …Mahbubul Anam =VS= Ministry of Land, Bangladesh, (Civil), 2019 (2) [7 LM (AD) 367] ....View Full Judgment

Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act
Section 5 read with
Environment Conservation Rules (1997) read with
The Constitution of Bangladesh
Article 32
Right to life as guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to protection and improvement of the environment and ecology– The Supreme Court of Bangladesh, on umpteen occasions, has given directives and guidelines to the government to demarcate the rivers as per their original borderlines and to restore free flow of water restraining the illegal attempts of their encroachments and to save them from being perished. Many housing companies and land developers found engaged in changing the nature and features of wetlands and rivers have already been stopped because of the proactive role of the Judiciary of Bangladesh. But, nevertheless, we have a long way to go and take a firm stand to build up public awareness and legislate more stringent laws to cope with the needs of the changing society, otherwise it will be difficult for us to protect the bountiful treasures of nature and ensure environmental security without which the lives of our posterity will be at stake. …Ministry of Land, BD =VS= Mohammad Mushfaqur Rahman, (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 325] ....View Full Judgment

Cancellation of long term lease granted by the government for the purpose of constructing hotels in the ho-tel/motel zone of Cox’s Bazar:
Dismissing the review petitions, the Court directed that all leases within Jhilanja Mouza of Cox’s Bazar granted after 19.04.1999 be cancelled in the same way as those of the writ-petitioners and any constructions made thereon be demolished; the leaseholders shall be compensated for their loss due to such cancellation/ demolition.
It was further directed that henceforth no lease shall be granted within Jhilanja Mouza or any area which has been classified as ecologically critical area. Mahbubul Anam -Vs.- Ministry of Land, represented by its Secretary Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh and others (Civil) 2019 ALR (AD) Online 321 ....View Full Judgment

Since BGMEA has constructed the multistoried commercial building upon the said waterbody in violation of the law such illegal construction/ obstruction must be demolished for which the BGMEA or any other person, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, can not claim any compensation as provided in Section 8(2) of the Joladhar Ain 2000. On the other hand the non-obstante clause of section 6 Uma of the Environment Conservation Act also provides clear prohibition in such construction /erection of any building on the waterbody. President BGMEA Vs. Bangladesh and others (Civil), 5 (2) LNJ 107

The “Joladhar” Ain, 2000”
Section 5 r/w
The Environment Conservation Act 1995
Sections “6 Uma” and 12 r/w
The Building Construction Rules, 1996
Rule 3(I)
We have no hesitation to hold that the BGMEA building complex has been constructed by the petitioner illegally in violation of all the laws of the land which cannot stay upright rather the same deserves to be demolished at once– The petitioner is directed to demolish the building namely, “BGMEA Complex” situated on the water body of “Begunbari khal” and “Hatirjheel lake” at once, at its own costs, in default the RAJUK is directed to demolish the same within 90 days from the date of receipt of this judgment and realize the entire demolition costs from the petitioner, BGMEA. .....Bangladesh Garments Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) =VS= Government of Bangladesh & others, [1 LM (AD) 142] ....View Full Judgment

Bangladesh Environment Conservation Act, 1995
Section 6 (Uma)
Constitution of Bangladesh
Article 104
Protection of environment– The subject matter of the instant case not only represents an occasion to, but also demands, exercise of this power by this Division for the avowed purpose of protection of environment. Madhumati Model Town project in Bilamalia and Bailarpur Mouzas is declared unlawful and Metro Makers are directed to restore the wetlands of these two mouzas to its original state within six months from the date of availability of the certified copy of the judgment, failing which, RAJUK is directed to undertake the work of restoration of these wetlands and recover the cost of restoration from Metro Makers and their directors treating the cost as a public demand. Though the third party purchasers may not be treated as bona fide, yet it is a fact that they have been roped in by Metro Makers by misrepresentation that permission for the development work had been obtained from RAJUK and justice demands that they should be compensated. (Per Syed Mahmud Hossain, J). ...Metro Makers and Developers Limited =VS= BELA, (Civil), 2021(2) [11 LM (AD) 261] ....View Full Judgment

Provides for conservation of environment and ecological balance for healthy and better living of the people—
Act No. XXXVI of 2000 provides for punishable offence for violation of the environmental law—
The High Court Division directed the writ respondents to take appropriate measures to remove the encroachments in the river Buriganga, Shitalakha, Turag after ascertaining the boundaries by survey. The authorities concerned issued notices upon the appellants to remove the illegal structures. The apex court found the directions of the High Court Division perfectly justified and accordingly the leave petitions are dismissed. City Sugar Industries Ltd. and others Vs. Human Rights and Peace for Bangladesh and others 15 MLR (2010) (AD) 389.

read with
Environment Conservation Act 1995
Rule 7(4) —No construction of any project can be undertaken without obtaining the Environment Clearance Certificate “(পরিবেশগত ছাড়পত্র)” from the Director General of Environment not ‘site clearance certificate’(অবস্থানগত ছাড়পত্র).
The Appellate Division held that the petitioner’s building admittedly being a fifteen storied commercial building requires both “অবস্থানগত ছাড়পত্র” as well as “পরিবেশগত ছাড়পত্র” which the petitioner failed /did not care to obtain as per requirement of law. In the absence of any environment clearance certificate (পরিবেশগত ছাড়পত্র) obtained from or issued by the Director General of the Department of Environment, no commercial establishment/project can be set up or built as provided in Section 12 read with Rule 7(4).
President, Bangladesh Garments Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) 23/1 Panthapath Link Road Kawran Bazar Dhaka. -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others. (Civil) 8 ALR (AD) 304-315

Legal action against the private plaintiffs want to convert the suit land into industrial plot by felling trees–
There is no denying fact that almost entire plot or a portion thereof is covered by various plantations. As per provisions of section 20 of the ‘পরিবেশ সংরক্ষণ আইন, 1995, the Director General has power under section 4 of the Ain to close down any industrial organisation if he is satisfied that such closure is necessary for conservation, preservation protection of environment. By felling the standing trees if a textile mill is set up in the suit land, the environment of the locality will be affected. The Forest Officer may take legal action against the plaintiffs through the Director General for the conservation of the environment if the private plaintiffs want to convert the suit land into industrial plot by felling trees. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Md. Shawkat Hossain, (Civil), 2018 (1) [4 LM (AD) 209] ....View Full Judgment

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