Building Construction Act, 1952
Building Construction Act, 1952
Section 3B (5) (d)- Export Promotion Bureau did not obtain any right, title, interest or possession of the same- Suo Moto Rule absolute by judgment and order dated 03.04.2011, holding that the 15 storied building constructed by BGMEA has been done on the water body illegally which is contrary to the master plan as well as the development plan of the Dhaka City in violation of Act XXXVI of 2000 and such construction cannot be allowed to remain in its position. Accordingly, the authority concerned was directed to demolish the said unauthorized building within 90 days. The High Court Division further held that 'the money invested by the BGMEA in the construction of the said building can never be a ground to allow it to stay upright'. Thus it has ordered that 'the BGMEA must return the money to those who bought flats/spaces in the said unauthorized building, as those transactions stand vitiated, within 12 months from the date of receipt of the claim. The flats/spaces buyers, can however, not, claim interest, because, they are guilty of contributory negligence as they had actual or knowledge constructive about BGMEA's bareness of title and the illegality as to the construction of the said building'. Bangladesh Garments Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA) =VS= Government of Bangladesh & others, [1 LM (AD) 142]
Section 9
The learned Judge of the High Court Division held that since a suit is pending between respondent No.4 and her two brothers for declaration of title, recovery of khas possession, cancellation of power of attorney and for cancellation of sale deeds the RAJUK has taken a reasonable and lenient view by merely passing the order of suspension of the construction work without cancelling the plan. Shafiuddin Miah & another vs, Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakhay (Latifur Rahman J) (Civil) IADC 570
Bhagoban Das vs. Mahadeb reported in A.I.R. 1923 Allahabad 298
The High Court Division committed an error of law by discharging the Rule in so far as to the appointment of Acting Nazir/Nazir as guardian in contravention of the provision of the Rule 843(1)(2) of Civil Rules and Orders and Rule 4(4) of Order 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure and such appointment being illegal and without jurisdiction, the Rule ought to have been made absolute for the protection of rights/ interests of the minors and also for ends of justice; in the case of Bhagoban Das vs. Mahadeb reported in A. I. R. 1923 Allahabad 298 it has been held that a vakil appointed as guardian of minors by court is an officer of that Court for the purpose of Order 32 Rule 4(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure and as such in Bangladesh. Anowarul Hoque being dead his heirs! (a): Md. Ruhul Amin and others vs Mohammad Tafazzal Mondal and others (Md. Tafazzul Islam, J)(Civil) 3ADC 798
