Town Improvement Act, 1953
Section 169
Building Construction Act, 1952
Sections 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 9, 14, 15, 17
The land inside the periphery of the lake should be acquired in the public interest as early as possible and the same should be maintained in a similar manner for preserving the lake with a road and walkway with reasonable slop towards water— "But since this petition is also by way of public interest litigation and accordingly, this Division gave directions to RAJUK to clarify the status of the land proposed to be acquired and for preparing a layout plan depicting the proposed road around the Gulshan and Baridhara lake and walkway with slops which must be constructed and maintained by the side of the boundary wall of the adjacent allottees. RAJUK has stated the land within the red hatching in the layout plan of Gulshan-Baridhara lake filed by RAJUK in its additional paper book together with the layout plan etc. showing its side land now in existence as part of the lake is intended to be acquired expeditiously and preserved as part of the lake. Preservation of the lake and to maintain a road and walkway with reasonable slop around the lake is a public purpose and accordingly, this Division directs that with that end in view the land inside the periphery of the lake should be acquired in the public interest as early as possible and the same should be maintained in a similar manner for preserving the lake with a road and walkway with reasonable slop towards water. This Division, accordingly, further gives the direction to the RAJUK for implementation of its aforesaid directions as soon as possible." The appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. .....Shahabuddin Chisti =VS= Rajdhani Unnayan Katripakhya, (Civil), 2025(2) [19 LM (AD) 182] ....View Full Judgment

Civil Aviation Rules, 1984
Rules 1(3), 11, 167, 267
Building Construct Act, 1952
Section 3, 9
Building Construction Rules, 1996
Rule 26 r/w
Constitution of Bangladesh, 1972
Article 141B
In the public interest the height of the building should be reduced to the permissible height under the Civil Aviation Rules, 1984— It is to be noted here that a high-rise building near or around the runway is definitely poses a serious aviation hazard and accordingly, the law has provided that any such building in the way or in the vicinity must not be beyond 60′ feet so as to affect smooth taking off and/or landing, otherwise, the consequence would be catastrophic. The above fact necessitates the Authority to exercise the only option to cancel the Building plan of ‘Rangs Bhaban’ beyond the permissible limit.
The plan was issued in favour of the writ-petitioners in clear violation of its own rules and the Civil Aviation Rules, 1984 and for that reasons as aforesaid the approved plan for construction of the concerned building upto the 22nd storied beyond the permissible the 6th floor as passed by RAJUK is declared without any lawful authority and as such, the same was of no legal effect. Accordingly, Appellate Division maintains the order of cancellation of the approved plan by RAJUK dated 21.06.1999 as a valid order so far above the permissible 6th floor limit. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division maintaining the approval of the Building plan to the extent above the permissible 6th floor is not sustainable in law and as such, the same above the 6th floor is set aside. .....RAJUK =VS= A. Rouf Chowdhury, (Civil), 2025(1) [18 LM (AD) 493] ....View Full Judgment

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

Building Construction Act, 1952
Section 3B, 7, 9, 15
State Acquisition and Tenancy Act, 1950
Section 117 (1)(c)
Town Improvement Act, 1953
Sections 72, 185, 187 and 190
Government and Local Authority Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1970
Section 5
The High Court Division acted illegally in entering into the disputed questions of fact in ascertaining the quantum of land possessed by the writ petitioners and the appellants. RAJUK in its affidavit-in-opposition clearly stated that the writ petitioners constructed three buildings violating the lay out plan and they were served with notice. When the writ petitioners were asked by notices to stop the constructions on the ground that they were making constructions encroaching upon land of the Government, they instituted title suit No 324 of 1999. Since disputed questions of fact raised in the writ petition and since the writ petitioners had already instituted a Suit, this dispute could have been disposed of adequately in that suit. The writ petitioners had withdrawn their suit during the pendency of the writ petition and proceeded with the writ petition at their risk and peril. Appellate Division finds merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. The writ petitioners are not entitled to seek any relief from a court of law for their unauthorized acts. The High Court Division has totally ignored that aspect of the matter and given reliefs to the writ petitioners despite finding that they have constructed the buildings by encroaching upon the land of the Military Estate Department. In view of above, this Division finds merit in these appeals. .....Government of Bangladesh =VS= Md. Gias Uddin Chowdhury, (Civil), 2024(2) [17 LM (AD) 542] ....View Full Judgment

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 Rules, 1998
Civil Aviation Rules, 1984
It is clear that the respondent has been refused sanction/approval by the appellants in constructing 20-storied building on the land of the Bangladesh Red Crescent Society is not based on any prohibitory law. Rather the same is arbitrary. The respondent herein has been discriminated in allowing/ according permission to construct the 20-storied building as prayed for. Hence the respondent herein being discriminated the principle of natural justice has been violated. In the absence of any such provision of law and on the face of allowing others to construct buildings above 20-storied, we are of the view that the appellants acted arbitrarily in refusing the present respondent to construct its planed 20-storied building, which RAJUK the concerned authority, of sanctioning such plan has already approved by the Building Construction Committee of RAJUK. Hence Appellate Division does not find any substance in this appeal. .....Civil Aviation Authority of Bangladesh =VS= Borak Real Estate (Pvt) Ltd. , (Civil), 2022(2) [13 LM (AD) 35] ....View Full Judgment

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