The proceeding under the Building Construction Act, 1952 is a matter different from the present proceeding for temporary injunction-law will take its course in sp ite of the judgment if the appellant is guilty of violation of provisions of the Building Construction Act.

Haji Nurul Alam Vs. Al-haj Abdus Sobhan 3BLT (AD)-135

Section —3

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 8BLT (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 unauthorised 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.1 served another notice directed to demolish the 2 storied building 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 Section3B 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. 9BLT(HCD)-326

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 authorized officer of the Kartipakkha issued him a notice asking him to show him any sanctioned plan which he may have had in respect of the said four storied building. The appellant showed cause on 7.5.94 after long seven months, the authorised officer of the Kartipakkha 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 Kartipakkha 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 he sustained.

Md. Abdus Sattar Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. 4BLT (AD)-2

Building Construction Rules, 1986


We find an expert of a meeting of the representatives from RAJUK and Air Force held on 23.05.1999. A 5-member committee was formed for identification of the buildings the height of which is greater than the fixed limit. It was also decided to cancel and/or reduce the height with information in the Air HQ and Civil Aviation Authority. If the owner does not stop construction, then legal steps would be taken. Both the decisions are general in nature and meant for the future. Nothing happened thereafter. There is nothing in respect of the building in question even in June, 1999, In such view of the matter, we do not see that rule 26 is any way attracted to the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Moreover, the Rules cannot override the mandatory provisions of the Act.

A. Rouf Chowdhury & Anr. Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. 8BLT(HCD)-277.