Principle of estoppel and waiver
We are of the view that after two years from the date of sanction and investment of huge amount of money by the respondents a vested right has accrued in letter’s favour. RAJUK cannot now cancel the sanction in such an arbitrary manner without giving notice claiming that due to mistake and misrepresentation the building plans were sanctioned and permission was given for construction.
Rajuk & Ors. Vs. Water Front Apartment Ltd 11 BLT (AD)-144.
The RAJUK was never given any power to remove and/or demolish any construction on the ground of height under the provisions of the Sectiion-3B of Act.
A. Rouf Chowdhury & Anr Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. 8 BLT (HCD)-277.
In the instant case it appears that the notice was served on 31.1.93 asking the petitioner to produce the approved plan before the authority and although the petitioner is his writ petition claimed that the produced the plan before the chairman of RAJUK. But according to notice he was to produce the said before the authorize officer. Then a show cause notice was issued upon the petitioner on 9.5.93 directing him
to demolish the unauthorized construction within 7 days of receipt. From the show cause notice dated 9.5.93 (Annexure-2 to the affidavit-in-opposition) it appears that the direction was given to demolish the entire building but without giving any reason for satisfaction of the RAJUK authority for issuing such notice for demolishing of the building constructed on approved plan. It appears from annexure-2 to the supplementary affidavit of the petitioner that within 7 days of receipt of the show cause notice the petitioner replied to the same but after about 2 and 12 months, respondent No. l served another notice directed to demolish the 2 storied bidding within 7 days holding the reply not
satisfactory. In that notice also no ground was given for which the entire building would be liable to be demolished, although the same was constructed on approved plan of RAJUK. Admittedly the petitioner replied to the show cause notice and according to Section-3B of Building Construction Act. 1952 the petitioner was required to be heard in persons but without affording him any such opportunity
of being heard the RAJUK authority in violation of. Section-3B(3). long after expiry of 15 days served the notice on 17.8.93 upon the petitioner directing him to demolish the entire building. So, it is apparent from the above factual position that the whole action
of the respondents were not only malafide but also illegal and without lawful authority.
Mohammad Amir Hossain Vs. RAJUK & Ors. 9 BLT (HCD)-326.