Building Construction Act, 1952

 

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.

Building Construction Act, 1952

 

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.

 

Building Construction Act, 1952

 

Building Construction Act, 1952

 

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.

 

Section-3B

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.

 

Section-3B(3)

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.