Sections 2(Cha), 3, 5 and 8
|
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
|
BGMEA Vs. Bangladesh & ors |
9 SCOB [2017] AD 70 |
Section 5
|
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
|
Bangladesh Garments Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) =VS= Government of Bangladesh & others |
1 LM (AD) 142 |
Section 5
|
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
|
President, Bangladesh Garments Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA), Dhaka. -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh, represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Public Works, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others |
8 ALR (AD) 304 |
Section 5
|
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
|
President, Bangladesh Garments Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA), Dhaka. -Vs.- Government of Bangladesh, Ministry of Housing and Public Works, Bangladesh Secretariat, Dhaka and others |
8 ALR (AD) 304 |
Sections 5 and 8
|
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
|
BGMEA Vs. Bangladesh & ors |
9 SCOB [2017] AD 70 |
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 |