Building
Construction Act, 1952
Section—3
A
proceeding under the Building Construction Act, 1952, whether it is of matter
different from a proceeding or temporary injunction.
A
proceeding under the Building Construction Act, 1952, is a matter different
from the present proceeding for temporary injunction and if the appellant is
found guilty of violation of the provisions of Building Construction Act, the
law will take its own course inspite of this judgment.
Haji Nurul
Alam @ Haji Nurul Alam Sawdagar Vs. Al-Haj Abdus Sobhan Sawdagar Wakf Estate
and another, 13BLD (AD) 155.
Section—3B
Although
according to the notice from RAJUK the petitioner was to produce the approved
plan for the building before the authorised officer of RAJUK, he produced the
same before the Chairman of RAJUK, and the subsequent show cause notice does
not mention that the plan was not produced before the appropriate authority.
The
nature of the impugned notices clearly show that the actions purported to have
been taken were malafide and in violation of section 3B.
Mohammad
Amir Hossain v. Authorised Officer, Rajdhani Unnayan Katripakkha and another,
22 BLD (HCD) 365.
Ref:
Dr. Nurul Islam v. Bangladesh 1981 BLD(AD)140; Jaichand Lal v. State of West Bengal
AIR 1 67(SC) 1483; Ram Chandra Chandhuri
v. Secretary to Government of West Bengal and others AIR 1964 (Cal.) 265, Abdus
Sattar v. Bangladesh and others 48 DLR(AD) 180; Md. Habibullah Chowdhury Rajdhani
Unnayan Katripakkha and others 11 BLD 173.
Sections—3B
and 9
In
regulating orderly development of the Metropolitan City of Dhaka, RAJUK has got
no right to trangress upon the rights of the citizens.
A. Rouf
Chowdhury and another Vs Bangladesh and others, 20 BLD (HCD) 537.
Section—3B
Rajuk
was never given any power to remove and/or demolish any construction on the
ground of height under the provisions of section 3B of the Act. Ibid.
Section—3B
The
order for removal of the construction first asked by the respondent No. 3
himself and then issued, in the name of the appellate authority was not passed
according to the provisions of section 3B of the Act. Ibid.
Ref:
Abdus Sattar Vs. Bangladesh and ors., 48DLR(AD) 180—relied.
Section—9
Rajuk
cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictates of others, how big
they may be, as this would be tantamount to abdication and surrender of its
discretion. Ibid.
Ref:
State of U.P. Vs. Maharaja Prasad Singh, (1989) 2 SCC 505—relied.
Section—9
The
decision of the committee also does not show what directions were given to the
petitioners which they were bound in law to comply with but di4. not comply. In
the absence of any such finding, just by saying for repeated non-compliance
with the notice, the Committee was not empowered to cancel the sanction. Ibid.