POURASHAVA ORDINANCE, 1977

 

POURASHAVA ORDINANCE

(XXVI OF 1977)

 

Section—4

Urban area—Declaration of—Legal effect
that follows from mere declaration of some area as urgban area—Mere declaration
of a rural area to be an urban area by notification in the gazette under the
Pourashava Ordinance does not ipso facto make it a Municipality or make it
included in the limits of an existing Municipality by way of extension— The
rural area of Union Parisad so declared as urban area must be taken over by the
authority concerned as municipal area—The old Union Parisad will exercise its
function over the area declared as urban area, until the said urban areas are
included in Paurashava, after corn plying with the relevant provisions of
Paurasava Ordinance and the Rules made there under—-The residents of the rural
area, declared as urban area, will not be franchiseless by mere declaration of
rural area as urban area—They will exercise their franchise and enjoy other
facilities as per provision of Union Parisad Ordinance 1983—The alleged
existing precarious condition of people of the area concerned due to the
declaration are not to he considered in writ jurisdiction.

Md.
Jalaluddin Vs. Bangladesh Repre sented by the Secretary Ministry of LGRD and
others. 10BLD (HCD) 145

 

Section—15(2)

Interpretation of statute—Mandatory and
directory provision—Whether the provision for holding by-election for electing
Chairman of the Pourasava within one month -of the vacancy is mandatory or
directory in nature—No consequence has been provided in the law for breach of
this requirement of holding by election within one month—In normal course where
a public officer is directed by a statute to perform a duty within a specified
time the provision as to time limit is regarded as directory—Had the provision
of clause 15(2) been intended by the legistature to be mandatory then the
consequences in the matter of default would have been provided but this having
not been done the normal meaning would be that it was a directory provision.

Abdul
Hamid Miah Vs. Bangladesh Election Commission and others

 

Sections—95 and 96

Jurisdiction—No exclusive jurisdiction
of Dacca Imptovement Trust or Dacca Municipal Corporation for land reclamation,
land development and housing etc.—These powers are permissible in nature
subject to approval of the Government.

Md. Ismail and others Vs. Bangladesh and
others. 1BLD (HCD) 407

 

Section—143

Encroachment—Plea of encroachment when
sustainable—Question of encroachment arises only in circumstances when someone
is in lawful possession of a particular premises but makes an unlawful
extension thereof.

Al-Haj
Mirza Shamsuddin Beg Vs. Bangladesh and another; 10BLD (HCD)22.

 

Pourashava Ordinance, 1977

Pourashava Ordinance, 1977

Section – 13 (1) (d)

Removal of the Petitioner
from the office of Chairman of Pourashava – moving a resolution of no
confidence.

Resolution
of no confidence against the petitioner was taken upon due compliance of law
and since the resolution has been approved by the competent authority, the order
of removal in respect of the petitioner removing him from the office of
Chairman does not suffer from infirmity.

Mosharraf Hossain
& Ors Vs LGRD & Ors 13BLT(AD)45

Section-21

It is
the consistent of this Division that Section 21 of the Pourashava Ordinance,
1977 is directory and not mandatory. It is within the province of the
delimitation Officer to take into consideration distribution of population as
far as practicable vis-a-vis the territorial unity and administrative
convenience and variation of population alone cannot he a ground to render
invalid a report of the delimitation finally published.

Miah Lutful Hossain
Khashru & Ors. Vs. Bangladesh & Ors. 8 BLT(AD)-284

Premises Rent Control Act, 1991

The High
Court Division observed that law permits eviction from the premises for
construction or re-construction according to section 18 (Uma) of Premises Rent
Control Act, 1991. We are of the view that the High Court Division on proper
assessment of the materials on record arrived at a correct decision and there
is nothing to interfere with the judgment of the High Court Division.

Kishore Kumar Roy
Vs. Md. Anwar Hossain & Anr 14 BLT (AD)15

Section —10 read with Section-18

We are
of the view the High Court Division was in error in reversing the judgment of the
lower appellate Court affirming the judgment of the trial Court on the view
that as the landlord had hand over possession of the premises in suit upon
receiving an amount more than one month rent as advance, landlord forfeited his
right of asking the tenant to hand over possession on the ground of bonafide
requirement or seeking redress under the law in case of refusal by the tenant
to hand over possession on the ground of bonafide requirement of the landlord.

Mst. Jahanara Khatun
Vs. Md. Nurul Islam 16 BLT (AD)175

Section -33 read with Premises and Rent Control
Ordinance, 1963 Section – 18

Section
36 of the Premises and Rent Control Ordinance, 1963, which was in force on
7.8.80, provides that-”Nothing in his Ordinance small apply to any premises
owned by Government.” Section 33 of Premises Rent Control Act 1991 also
contains similar provision. So late Samsur Rahman having been inducted a tenant
by the Government 7.8.80, the appellants are not entitled to seek protection
under section 18 of Premises and Rent Control Ordinance, 1963 or section 33 of
the Premises and Rent Control Act, 1991.

M/S. Jalil Brothers
& Ors. Vs. Humayun Majid & Ors. 14 BLT (AD) 263.