IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BANGLADESH

HIGH COURT DIVISION

 (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

Present:

Mr. Justice Ashish Ranjan Das

And

    Mr. Justice Fahmida Quader

WRIT PETITION NO. 17633 OF 2017.

IN THE MATTER OF:

An  application  under  Article  102  of  the Constitution  of  the  People’s  Republic  of Bangladesh.

-AND -

IN THE MATTER OF:

Muhammad Idris Ali being died leaving behind his legal heirs-

1. Ferdous Ali and another

                                    .....Petitioner

-VS-

Government of Bangladesh

.......Respondents Mr. Md. Ozi Ullah, Advocate with

Mr. A.R.M Kamruzzaman Kakon, Advocate

…..For the Petitioner Mr. S.M Iftakhar Uddin Mahmud, D.A.G

                        ....For the respondents

Heard on. 28.08.2024 Judgment on: 02.09.2024.

Fahmida Quader, J.

This Rule Nisi, at the instance of the application filed under Article 102(2) of the Constitution, by the petitioner Mohammad Idris Ali issued on 05.12.2017, was in the following terms-

“Let a Rule Nisi be issued calling upon the respondents

to  show  cause  as  to  why  the  memo  vide  No.

l¡SEL/Ex¢exjq¡M¡m£  ®S¡e  4/1  2¢p  43/17/1086 dated

14.06.2017 issued under the signature of respondent No.

5 directing the petitioner to demolish the building of the

petitioner within 7 days without serving any statutory

show cause notice and without giving any opportunity of

hearing to the petitioner under Section 3B of the Building

Construction  Act,  1952  (annexure-A)  should  not  be

declared to have been issured without lawful authority

and is of no legal effect and/or pass such other or further

order or orders as to this court may seem fit and proper.” The primary statements out lined in the petition, which resulted in the issuance of the Rule Nisi, are briefly Summarized as follows:-

On January 1, 1989, the petitioner applied to Respondent no.2 for permission to construct a three story building on his land. Permission was granted on September 11,1990, and the petitioner proceeded with the construction. Later, in 2016, the petitioner sought permission from Respondent No. 2 to mortgage the property to Lanka Bangla Finance Ltd. for a loan, which was granted on September 8.2016.

Following  the  lawful  construction  and  peaceful  possession  of  the property, including regular payment of holding tax, the petitioner was suddenly served with a memo on June 14, 2017, from Respondent No.5 directing the demolition of the building .This notice was issued without any prior statutory notice or opportunity for the petitioner to be heard, violating the provisions under section 3B of the Building Construction  Act  of  1952.  Despite  the  previous  approval  and  the legality  of  the  building’s  construction,  the  impugned  notice  from Respondent No. 5, dated June 14, 2017, appears to have been issued with malafide intent and a colorable exercise of power. Consequently, the memo is liable to be declared as issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Mr. A.R.M Kamruzzaman Kakon, the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner after presenting the petition, the impugned memo and other relevant materials on records, advanced following arguments:

1.     The  impugned  notice  dated  June  ,14,  2017,  was  issued

without  serving  a  statutory  show  cause  notice  or  providing  the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, violating Section 3B of the building Construction Act, 1952.

2.    Despite the approval of the building plan by Respondent

No.2 on September11, 1990, after verifying all necessary documents, Respondent No.5 issued the impugned notice with malafide intention, misusing power.

3.     The  petitioner  constructed  the  building  with  significant

personal investment and a loan from a financial institution. Ignoring these facts, Respondent No.5 issued the impugned notice with the intent  to  harass  the  petitioner,  allegedly  motivated  by  personal animosity.

4.   The right to property is a fundamental right under Article

42 of the Constitution of Bangladesh. The impugned notice infringes on the petitioner’s right to property and as such learned Advocate prays that the impugned notice should be declared invalid, as it was issued without lawful authority and is of no legal effect.

Respondents  Governments  Contested  the  Rule  without  piling  any affidavit in opposition.

We have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and thoroughly examined the writ petition, Annexures and other materials on record.

Upon  careful  consideration  of  the  submissions  and  documents presented, including Annexure B, which comprises the plan approval and building layout and Annxure -D, which provides  evidence of holding tax payments for the years 2015-2017, it is established the petitioner lawfully constructed a three storied building following the approval from RAJUK. The petitioner has been in peaceful possession of the said property. Moreover, Annexure-C demonstrates that the petitioner  obtained  a  loan  by  mortgaging  the  property,  further confirming his legitimate ownership and use of the building. However, according to the petitioner, despite these clear and lawful actions,  the  impugned  notice  (Annexure-A)  was  issued  without serving a statutory show-cause notice as required under Section 3B of the Building Construction Act, 1952, which reads as follows:-

d¡l¡- 3 Mx ¢ej¡ÑZ fÐi«¢a Afp¡l−Zl SeÉ ¢e−cÑnz-1) kMe Abl¡CSX A¢gp¡l h¡ L¢j¢Vl pÇj¤−M ®rœja fÐa£uj¡e qk ®k,-

L) 1986 p−el Cj¡la ¢ejÑ¡Z (pw−n¡de) A¢ÑXÑeÉ¡¾p(1986 p−e 72 ew A¢XÑeÉ¡¾p) hmh−al f§−hÑ h¡ f−l ®L¡e Cj¡la ¢ejÑ¡Z h¡ f¤ex¢ejÑ¡e qCu¡−R h¡ ®L¡e Cj¡l−al pw−k¡Se h¡ f¢lhaÑe Be£a qCu¡−R, h¡ ®L¡e Sm¡c¡l Mee h¡ f¤exMee Ll¡ qCu¡−R;

M) ®L¡e fÐL¡l Cj¡la ¢ejÑ¡Z h¡ f¤ex¢ejÑ¡Z Ll¡ qC−a−R, h¡ ®L¡e fÐL¡l Cj¡l−al ®L¡e pw−k¡Se h¡ f¢lhaÑe Ll¡ qC−a−R, h¡ ®L¡e fÐL¡l Sm¡d¡l Mee h¡ f¤exMee Ll¡ qC−a−Rz

−kC−r−œ d¡l¡-3 Hl Ad£e j”¤¢l hÉa£a h¡ fÐcš j”¤¢ll naÑ Aj¡eÉ L−l, ®pC−r−œ ¢a¢e h¡ Cq¡ HL¢V −e¡¢V−nl j¡dÉ−j Cj¡l−al h¡ Sm¡d¡−ll j¡¢mL, cMmd¡l J c¡¢uaÅfСç hÉ¢š²−L −e¡¢Vn ®kCi¡−h h¢ZÑa qC−a f¡−l, HCl©f e§Éeaj 7(p¡a) ¢c−el ®e¡¢V−n ®qa¥ cnÑ¡Ch¡l ¢e−cÑn ¢c−a f¡¢l−h,

1.       ®e¡¢V−nl hZÑe¡ Ae¤k¡u£ ¢e¢jÑa h¡ ¢ejÑ¡Z¡d£e Cj¡la h¡ Eq¡l ®L¡e Awn ¢L L¡l−Z Afp¡lZ h¡ i¡¢‰u¡ ®gm¡ qC−h e¡, Abh¡
2.     ®e¡¢V−nl hZÑe¡ Ae¤k¡u£ Mee Ll¡ qCu¡−R h¡ Mee Ll¡la Sm¡c¡l h¡ Eq¡l ®L¡e Awn ¢L L¡l−Z il¡V Ll¡ qC−h e¡, Abh¡
3. Eš² Cj¡l−al ¢ejÑ¡Z h¡ f¤ex¢ejÑ¡Z h¡ Eq¡l pw−k¡Se h¡ f¢lhaÑe h¡ Mee h¡ f¤exMee ¢L L¡l−e hå Ll¡ qC−h e¡z

2.     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
3.     ®kC−r−œ, ®e¡¢V−n E−õ¢Ma pjup£j¡l j−dÉ L¡lZ cnÑ¡−e¡l fl, Eq¡ ¢h−hQe¡ Hhw L¡lZ cnÑ¡−eÚ¡L¡l£ hÉ¢š²−L öe¡e£l k¤¢š²p‰a p¤−k¡N c¡−el fl, h¡ ®kC−r−œ Eš² pj−ul j−dÉ ®L¡e L¡lZ cnÑ¡−e¡ e¡ qu, Abl¡CSX A¢gp¡l h¡ ®rœja

L¢j¢V, ¢a¢e h¡ Eq¡ −kje kb¡bÑ h¢mu¡ j−e L−le ®pCl©f Ce−L¡u¡l£l fl HCj−jÑ f¢la¥ø qe ®k, 3 d¡l¡l Ad£e j”¤l£ hÉa£a h¡ Eš² d¡l¡l Ad£−e ®kCph naÑ¡¢cl ®fТr−a j”¤¢l ®cJu¡ qCu¡¢Rm ®pCph naÑ¡¢c mwOe L¢lu¡ Cj¡la ¢ejÑ¡Z h¡ f¤ex¢ejÑ¡Z Ll¡ qCu¡−R h¡ qC−a−R, h¡ Sm¡c¡l Mee h¡ f¤exMee L¢lu¡−R h¡ L¢l−a−R, ®pC−r−œJ ¢a¢e HC B−c−nl L¡lZ E−õMf§hÑL HL¢V ¢m¢Ma B−cn La«ÑL Cj¡la h¡ Sm¡d¡−ll j¡¢mL, cMmc¡l J ®rœja c¡¢uaÅfСç hÉ¢š²−L ®kCl©f ¢edÑ¡¢la qu ®pCl©f ¢ed¡Ñ¢la pj−ul j−dÉ B−c−n h¢ZÑa Ef¡−u Eš² Cj¡la h¡

Eq¡l ®L¡e Awn Afp¡l−Zl h¡ i¡¢‰u¡ ®g¢mh¡l SeÉ h¡ Eš² Sm¡d¡l h¡ Eq¡l

®L¡e Awn il¡V L¢lh¡l SeÉ h¡ BlJ ¢ejÑ¡Z J f¤e¢ejÑ¡Z h¡ pw−k¡Se h¡ f¢lhaÑe

h¡ Mee h¡ f¤exMee hå L¢lh¡l E−Ÿ−nÉ ¢e−cÑn ¢c−a f¡¢l−he, Hhw AeÉ¡eÉ ®r−œ Eš² ®e¡¢Vn M¡¢lS L¢lh¡l B−cn fÐc¡e L¢l−a f¡¢l−hez

Therefore,  under  the  aforementioned  provision,  without  serving  a

show  cause  notice  or  providing  an  opportunity  for  a  hearing,  the

authority lacs the right to demolish the building. The learned Deputy Attorney General submits that, according to the contested letter, a

show  cause  notice  was  issued  to  the  petitioner,  however,  as  the petitioner took no action, the notice was severed by the respondent

No- 5. The contents of the impugned letter are as follows:-

Se¡h/Se¡h¡ pšÆ¡¢dL¡l£ haÑj¡e ¢WL¡e¡: 4 jq¡M¡m£ h¡¢e¢SÉL Hm¡L¡ he¡e£

Y¡L¡−a Bfe¡−L/Bfe¡−cl−L Aœ cç−l fœ pÈ¡lL ew l¡SEL/E:¢e: jq¡M¡m£ ®S¡e 4/1/2¢p 43/17/685ÙÛ¡

a¡¢lM 28/3/17 Cw Hhw pÈ¡lL ew l¡SEL/E:¢e: jq¡M¡m£ ®S¡e 4/1/2¢p, 43/17/838ÙÛ¡

a¡¢lM 3/5/17Cw ®j¡a¡−hL kb¡œ²−j l¡SEL Ae¤−−j¡¢ca eLn¡ (j”¤l£) c¡¢M−ml ®e¡¢Vn fÐc¡−el SeÉ

Bf¢e/Bfe¡l¡ eLn¡ c¡¢Mm Ll−a hÉbÑ qJu¡u haÑj¡e ¢e¢jÑa/¢eÑj¡Z¡d£e ihe ®Le ®i−‰ ®gm¡/ ¢ejÑ¡Z L¡S hå Ll¡ q−h h¡ a¡l L¡lZ cn Ñ−e¡l ®e¡¢Vn fÐc¡e Ll¡ q−mJ ®e¡¢V−nl Sh¡hJ fÐc¡e L¢l−a Bf¢e/Bfe¡l¡ hÉbÑ q−u−Re Hhw ®e¡¢Vn Ae¤k¡u£ ¢ejÑ¡Z L¡S hå L−le e¡Cz Cq¡ Cj¡la ¢ejÑ¡Z BCe 1952 Hl 3¢h d¡l¡l f¢lf¢¿Û Hhw Eš² BC−el fТa AnÐÜ¡l p¡¢jmz

Hja¡hÙÛ¡u, Bfe¡−L/Bfe¡−cl−L 07(p¡a) ¢c−el j−dÉ A¯hd AhL¡W¡−j¡ ®i−‰/Afp¡lZ Ll¡l SeÉ ¢e−cÑn fÐc¡e Ll¡ q−m¡z

hÉbÑa¡u Cj¡la ¢ejÑ¡Z BCe 1952 Hl 7 d¡l¡ ®j¡a¡−hL Eš² A¯hd AhL¡W¡−j¡ l¡SEL LaѪL ®i−‰/Afp¡lZ Ll¡ q−h Hhw Cj¡la ¢ejÑ¡Z BC−el pw¢nÔø d¡l¡ Ae¤k¡u£ i¡‰/Afp¡lZ h¡hc k¡ha£u MlQ Bfe¡l/Bfe¡−cl ¢eLV qC−aBc¡u Ll¡ q−hz Cq¡C Q¤s¡¿¹ ®e¡¢Vn h−m NZÉ Ll¡ q−hz

Nonetheless, no such notice has been produced by the respondents.

As a result, the respondents failed to demonstrate compliance with the statutory  provisions  outlined  in  Section  3B  of  the  Building Construction Act, 1952, which mandates fulfillment before issuing the impugned notice. The petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to be heard,  constituting  a  violation  of  the  right  to  property  guaranteed under Article 42 of the Constitution.

Additionally,  it  is  highly  unjust  to  demolish  legally  constructed building, which has been duly approved by the competent authority,

i.e. RAJUK, solely on the ground that the petitioner failed to submit the approved plan. 

Notably, the initial approval from RAJUK was granted on September 11,1990, yet the impugned notice was not issued until 2016 after a lapse of 26 years. Such an extensive delay further undermines the legitimacy of the notice and fails to justify its issuance.

In the light of aforementioned facts, we find the impugned notice to be unlawful and unjustified. Accordingly, the notice is declared illegal and the Rule is made absolute.

The order of stay and injunction granted earlier by this court is hereby vacated.

Communicate the judgment at once.

Ashish Ranjan Das, J.

I agree.

Anower B.o