Mohammad Sharafat Ali vs. Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK) and Others

Case Studies

Our case details provide a closer look at how we approach each legal challenge. From initial consultations to final resolutions, we document our strategies, key decisions, and the successful outcomes achieved for our clients.

Mohammad Sharafat Ali vs. Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK) and Others

Respondents: : Government of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK), various local authorities

Issue: The petitioner challenges the legality of a demolition notice issued by RAJUK, directing the petitioner to demolish an existing structure on his property, arguing it is arbitrary, unlawful, and infringes upon his fundamental rights.

Facts of the Case

1. Property Ownership:

The petitioner inherited a 40 square yard property at Plot No. H/3*, Block-EE, Baker Road, Mohammadpur, Dhaka, from his late father and uncle. The property has been duly mutated and Land Development Tax paid.

2. Construction Notices

On 07.05.2023, RAJUK issued a notice alleging illegal construction and requiring the petitioner to submit an approved design within 7 days
On 18.06.2023, RAJUK issued a second notice for failure to comply with the previous notice.
On 20.12.2023, a final notice was issued demanding demolition of the structure within 7 days or face forced demolition by RAJUK.

3. Petitioner’s Position:The petitioner claims the notices are unjustified as the construction was completed long before the notices, and the property serves as his only residence. He argues that the notices are arbitrary and infringe on his fundamental rights.

Relevant Legal Precedents and Case References

1.Constitutional Protections

Article 27: Ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the law.
Article 31: Guarantees protection of the law for all citizens.
Article 42: Protects the right to acquire, hold, transfer, and dispose of property.

Case Reference: Hossain Ali vs. Bangladesh (2016) 68 DLR (HCD) 117, where the High Court upheld the constitutional protection of property rights and emphasized the need for due process.

2. Due Process and Fairness:

Case Reference: Mohammad Ali vs. Dhaka City Corporation (2011) 63 DLR (HCD) 425, where the Court ruled that administrative actions affecting fundamental rights must adhere to principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

3. Administrative Authority and Legal Framework:

Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK) Act, 1956: Defines the powers and duties of RAJUK concerning urban planning and development control.
Building Construction Act, 1952: Provides regulations for construction and requirements for obtaining necessary approvals.

Regulatory Circular: RAJUK Circular No. 12/2015, which outlines the procedures for handling construction violations and the process for issuing demolition notices.

4.Land Development Tax and Property Rights:

Land Development Tax Act, 1958: Governs the payment of land development taxes and provides evidence of ownership and right to property.

Case Reference: Fakhruddin Ahmed vs. Government of Bangladesh (2010) 62 DLR (HCD) 150, which highlighted the importance of proper legal documentation in property disputes.

Analysis

Legality of the Demolition Notice: The petitioner contends that the notice directing demolition is illegal as it fails to consider the completed status of the construction and does not follow due process. The notices appear to have been issued without proper consideration of the petitioner’s response and ongoing residence.
Infringement of Fundamental Rights: The petitioner argues that the demolition notice infringes his rights under Articles 27, 31, and 42 of the Constitution. The Court will need to 26 | P a g e assess whether the action of RAJUK disproportionately affects the petitioner’s right to property and right to live.
Procedural Compliance: The administrative actions must comply with established procedures. The failure to address the petitioner’s replies and the issuance of notices without adequate consideration may indicate procedural irregularities

Recommendations

Issue a Rule Nisi: The Court should issue a Rule Nisi to determine the legality of the impugned notice and its compliance with due process.
Stay of Demolition: Pending a final decision, the Court should consider a stay of the demolition notice to prevent immediate harm to the petitioner and his family.
Evaluation of Compliance: RAJUK should be directed to provide a detailed explanation of the procedural steps taken and whether they complied with applicable laws and regulations.
Hearing and Relief: After hearing both parties, the Court should decide whether the impugned notice should be quashed and whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief for the alleged infringement of his rights.

Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Abdur Rahim, a prominent industrialist and former Commercially Important Person (CIP), is seeking judicial intervention for rescheduling his loan liabilities due to adverse business conditions. The petitioner’s application, dated 01.01.2024, was made under BRPD Circular No. 16 of 2022, which provides guidelines for rescheduling loan liabilities. The Bangladesh Bank, however, has failed to address the application, prompting the petitioner to seek relief from the High Court Division.

Project Info

Legal Issues

Regulatory Authority of Bangladesh Bank: The petitioner challenges the inaction of the Bangladesh Bank in exercising its jurisdiction under sections 45 and 49(1) (Cha) of the Bank Companies Act, 1991.
Compliance with BRPD Circular: The petitioner argues that the failure to reschedule the loan as per BRPD Circular No. 16 (2022) violates the petitioner’s rights and regulatory norms.

Relevant Legal Precedents

Bangladesh Bank v. National Bank Ltd. (2019) 71 DLR (AD) 161-Summary: This case affirmed the Bangladesh Bank’s role in regulating and issuing
directives to commercial banks. The court emphasized that the Bangladesh Bank has
a supervisory role over compliance with regulatory circulars.
M.A. Hossain v. Bank of Bangladesh (2018) 70 DLR (HCD) 132-Summary: The court addressed the obligations of banks to follow directives issued by Bangladesh Bank, affirming that borrowers are entitled to relief under such directives
if banks fail to comply.
Nashit & Co. v. Agrani Bank (2020) 72 DLR (HCD) 80: Summary: This case discussed the applicability of BRPD circulars in loan rescheduling
matters and the role of regulatory authorities in enforcing these circulars.
Faridpur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Sonali Bank Ltd. (2021) 73 DLR (HCD) 56-Summary: The court examined the terms of loan settlements and the bank’s
responsibilities under regulatory guidelines, reinforcing that banks must adhere to
directives issued by regulatory bodies.
Jamaluddin Ahmed v. United Commercial Bank Ltd. (2017) 69 DLR (HCD) 165-Summary: The court reviewed the remedies available to borrowers when banks fail to follow regulatory directives regarding loan rescheduling.

Relevant Regulatory Circulars and Acts

Regulatory Authority of Bangladesh Bank: The petitioner challenges the inaction of the Bangladesh Bank in exercising its jurisdiction under sections 45 and 49(1) (Cha) of the Bank Companies Act, 1991-Summary: This circular provides guidelines for the rescheduling of loan liabilities,
including provisions for a five-year repayment period with a one-year grace period.
The petitioner’s request was based on this circular.
Bank Companies Act, 1991-Sections 45 and 49 (1) (Cha): These sections outline the Bangladesh Bank’s authority
to regulate and supervise commercial banks, including issuing directives related to
loan management and rescheduling

Legal Analysis

The petitioner’s claim rests on the Bangladesh Bank’s failure to act on his application for loan rescheduling as per BRPD Circular No. 16 of 2022. This failure potentially infringes upon the petitioner’s rights under the Constitution, particularly regarding the principles of fairness and equality in financial dealings. The petitioner argues that the Bangladesh Bank’s inaction is arbitrary and contrary to established regulatory norms, as evidenced by the aforementioned legal precedents. The case is likely to hinge on whether the Bangladesh Bank’s inaction constitutes a failure to fulfill its regulatory duties and whether the petitioner’s request for loan rescheduling under the specified circular is legally enforceable.

Conclusion

The petitioner, Abdur Rahim, a prominent industrialist and former Commercially Important Person (CIP), is seeking judicial intervention for rescheduling his loan liabilities due to adverse business conditions. The petitioner’s application, dated 01.01.2024, was made under BRPD Circular No. 16 of 2022, which provides guidelines for rescheduling loan liabilities. The Bangladesh Bank, however, has failed to address the application, prompting the petitioner to seek relief from the High Court Division.

Case Studies