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

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, (Civil), 2016-[1 LM (AD) 142] ....View Full Judgment

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

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
Section 5 read with
Building Construction Act [II of 1953]
Section 3 —Proof of ownership/title of the applicant over the land in question is a mandatory requirement to obtain sanction of plan from the RAJUK.
The Appellate Division found that the EPB did not acquire title, whatsoever, before handing over the possession of land in question to the BGMEA in 2001 nor it got its name mutated in the record of rights, thus there is a question of vesting title on the BGMEA. As such it has/had no scope of submitting the title documents along with the plan. So there is no scope for the RAJUK to approve or sanction the building construction plan, and RAJUK in its affi¬davit stated that it did not finally approve the plan. In this score also the BGMEA building/office Complex has been constructed in violation of the Building Construction Act, 1952.
President, Bangladesh Garments Man¬ufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) 23/1 Panthapath Link Road Kawran Bazar Dhaka. -Vs.- Govern¬ment of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others. (Civil) 8 ALR (AD) 304-315

The BGMEA has constructed a fifteen storied commercial complex on the “Begun Bari Khal” and “Hatir jheel lake” which is natural waterbody (প্রাকৃতিক জলাধার) as has been specifically admitted in the schedule to the transfer deed, Annexure-K-2 as well as in the government record and in the Master Plan of the Dhaka City, as Lake/Jolashoy/Doba. As such from the above provision of law, the class or the nature and character of the same cannot be changed nor can be used in any other manner/purpose nor can the same be leased out, rented or transferred by anybody. The law further provides that any person changing the nature and character of such “Joladhar” (water body), in violation of section 5 of the said Act of 2000, shall be dealt with in accordance with law as provided in section 8. Since BGMEA has constructed the multi-storied 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, cannot claim any compensation as provided in Section 8(2) of the Joladhar Ain 2000. …BGMEA Vs. Bangladesh & ors, (Civil), 9 SCOB [2017] AD 70 ....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

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