Act/Law wise: Judgment of Supreme Court of Bangladesh (AD & HCD)
Building Construction Act, 1952 | |||
---|---|---|---|
Section/Order/ Article/Rule/ Regulation | Head Note | Parties Name | Reference/Citation |
Section 3B (5) (d) |
Export Promotion Bureau did not obtain any right, title, interest or
possession of the same–
|
Bangladesh Garments Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) =VS= Government of Bangladesh & others | 1 LM (AD) 142 |
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 |
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.
|
Abdus Sattar (Md) vs Bangladesh and others | 48 DLR (AD) 180 |
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 |
Shafiuddin Miah & another vs, Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakhay | 1 ADC 570 |
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 |
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 (AD) 449 |
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 |
Building Construction Act |
Building Construction Act
|
Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh =VS= Borak Real Estate (Pvt) Ltd. | 13 LM (AD) 35 |
State necessity–– |
Government Building Act, 1899
|
Bangladesh =VS= Bangladesh Paribesh Andolon (BAPA) | 13 LM (AD) 496 |