Section 3-
The petitioner should have gone to the respondents in compliance with the impugned memo to ventilate his grievance and to establish his claim that he has not violated any rules. It is not open to the petitioner to challenge the impugned memo as his right to the property or any legal right or any fundamental right has not been infringed.
Abul Kashem (Md) vs Chairman, RAJUK and others 52 DLR 488.
Section 3-
The whereabouts of the owner being well known issuance of notice to the owner is absolutely the correct procedure and is a constructive notice to the occupier.
Meridian International (Pvt) Ltd and another vs Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakha (RAJUK) and others 53 DLR 35.
Section 3-
RAJUK cannot cancel the sanction for building construction without giving notice that due to mistake and misrepresentation the building plans were sanctioned and permission was given for construction.
Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakshya (RAJUK) and others vs Water Front Apartment Ltd and ors 56 DLR (AD) 16.
Sections 3, 9 and 12-
Contravening provision for construction-When punishment not sustainable: Non-conformity with a sanctioned plan is visited with punishment of cancellation of the plan. There is nothing on record to show that the authority had cancelled the permission accorded to the plan. Papers filed in the case show that the prosecution was set in motion against the petitioner for her making construction not in conformity with the sanctioned plan and not for making any construction even after cancellation of the plan. The petitioner was not therefore guilty for making construction without sanction.
Pariman Hashi Grosser vs Authorised Officer CDA 42 DLR 462.
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.
A Rouf Chowdhury and another vs Bangladesh and others 52 DLR 461.
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 38 of the Act.
A Rouf Chowdhury and another vs Bangladesh and others 52 DLR 461.
Sections 3B and 6—
Construction without sanction-Eviction of tenant. The Authorised Officer is empowered to get vacated any building constructed, by the owner without sanction. The submissions that since the petitioner was a tenant of the owner only the owner could evict him under the Premises Rent Control Ordinance after giving notice under section I 06 of Transfer of Property Act is not tenable. This could be true if the building was constructed without violating the Building Construction Act.
Anwar Ali (Md) vs RAJUK 44 DLR 515.
Sections 3B and 7-
Construction of building without sanction- Order for removal and question of natural justice-To a person like the petitioner who constructed a building without sanction opportunity has been given to obtain sanction on payment often times of the prescribed fee and fine imposed. Had the petitioner availed such opportunity to protect his construction by submitting an application for sanction it could be said that he was prejudiced for not allowing him an opportunity to be heard on question of saving his construction from demolition. In the absence of pendency of any application for sanction, it cannot be said that there was failure of the principle of natural justice in his case.
Habibullah Chowdhury vs RAJUK 43 DLR 187.
Sections 3B and 9-
In regulating orderly development of the Metropolitan City of Dhaka, RAJUK has got no right to transgress upon the rights of the citizens.
A Rouf Chy and another vs Bangladesh and others 52 DLR 461.
Section 3B(l)(b),(3)(5)-
No order of demolition can be passed under sub-section (5) of section 3B 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). This action was nothing but riding roughshod over the procedural safeguards guaranteed to the owners and occupiers.
The impugned order of the Authorised Officer lacks any legal basis and cannot be sustained.
Abdus Sattar (Md) vs Bangladesh and others 48 DLR (AD) 180.
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 did 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.
A Rouf Chowdhury and another vs Bangladesh and others 52 DLR 461.
Section 9-
RAJUK cannot permit its decision to be influenced by the dictates of others, how big they may be, as this would tantamount to abdication and surrender of its discretion.
A Rouf Chowdhury and another vs Bangladesh and others 52 DLR 461.
Section 12(3)-
Provision of section 12(3) cannot be of retrospective effect, it being a penal provision.
Pariman Hashi Grosser vs Authorised Officer CDA 42 DLR 462.