MD. SHAFIUDDIN MIAH Vs. RAJDHANI UNNAYAN KARTRIPAKHYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal following leave at the instance of the writ petitioner appellants is against the judgment and order dated 3.6.97 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in Writ Petition No. 2042 of 1994 discharging the Rule.

(2.) The appellants obtained sanction for a plan from RAJUK to construct a 10-storied building on 16-11-89 in the disputed land which was purchased by them from Anwar Rahim, Akhter Rahim, the two brothers and their sister, Mrs. Razia Rahim (respondent No.4) who inherited 1.20 arces of land of C.S. plot No. 329 and a part of C.S. plot Nos. 307 and 331 of Mouza Bara Maghbazar, PS. keraniganj (now Ramna), Dhaka from their late father Dr. Habibur Rahim. The appellants purchased .74 acres of land from out of 1.20 acres. Anwar Rahim sold some portion of the said land to others and .46 acres still remain the ejmali property of the two brothers and the said sister. Before the plan was sanctioned respondent No. 4 filed an objection to the RAJUK complaining that she had filed Title Suit No. 9 of 1983 for a declaration of title to the land purchased by the appellants, recovery of possession, cancellation of the power of attorney and cancellation of sale deeds in favour of the appellants. The suit was dismissed for default on 22-12-86 but an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C was filed and Miscellaneous Case No. 104 of 1987 was started on 4-2-87. RAJUK considered the objection and upon obtaining the opinion of its legal adviser sanctioned the plan on 16-11-89. Upon the appellants application the plan was re-sanctioned on 9-2-93. While the appellant constructed the multi storied building up to the 4 floor after investing huge amount of money respondent No.4 again objected to RAZUK against the sanctioning of the plan, whereupon without hearing the appellants and giving them any notice the Authorised Officer issued notice on 6-12-93 directing them to stop all further construction pending disposal of the pending suit or else steps would be taken under the Building Construction Act against them. The appellants filed an appeal on 4-1-94 and were thereafter informed by the impugned notice dated 30-4-94 that the Appellate authority on obtaining the opinion of the legal adviser of RAJUK decided that the previous order dated 6.12.93 passed by the Authorised Officer will remain in force till disposal of the pending suit.

(3.) The appellants thereafter filed the instant Writ Petition challenging the impugned notice dated 30-4-94. It is their case that Anwar Rahim and Akhter Rahim themselves and as "attorney of their sister Mrs. Razia Rahim, respondent No. 4 duly executed and registered the sale deed in favour of the appellants. The plan was sanctioned in 1989 and in 1993 with the full knowledge of the pending suit.