Cheated in a Land-Share Housing Project? Your Legal Options in Bangladesh
If you paid for a land share and an apartment that never came, the law gives you real ways to fight back, and acting early decides how much you can recover.
You are not alone. As of 30 September 2026, Supreme Court data reported by The Business Standard show 9,823 land-share housing fraud cases pending in courts across Bangladesh. They involve nearly 40,000 buyers and around Tk 12,000 crore.
| Area | Pending cases | Approx. amount involved |
|---|---|---|
| Nationwide | 9,823 | Tk 12,000 crore |
| Dhaka (metropolitan and district courts) | 5,948 | Tk 4,500 crore |
| Munshiganj | 538 | Tk 1,500 crore+ |
| Chattogram | 386 | Tk 1,000 crore |
| Narayanganj | 286 | Tk 700 crore |
| Sylhet | 213 | Tk 800 crore |
Behind each number is a family that saved for years. This article explains how these schemes work, what remedies Bangladeshi law offers, and how to use them together.
How the land-share scam works
The model is simple. A plot is divided into shares, and each buyer is promised a proportionate ownership stake plus an apartment in the building to come. Because land in Dhaka is out of reach for most families, the offer looks like an affordable route to owning both.
The fraud usually takes one of four forms:
Unregistered land shares. The buyer pays in full but no share of the land is ever registered in their name.
Unauthorised projects. The developer has no registration and no RAJUK or authority approval, sometimes showing buyers a fake plan.
The same plot sold many times. In one reported Uttarkhan project, 36 shares in a 10-katha plot were also sold to about 40 other people.
Land the seller never owned. In one reported Sylhet project, buyers paid around Tk 90 crore for shares in what turned out to be government khas land.
Most of these schemes are sold through social media advertising. Many of the companies involved are not REHAB members and have no track record in construction.
What to do first
The first two weeks matter most, because fraudsters move money and land quickly once buyers start complaining.
Gather every document. Keep the agreement, allotment letter, money receipts, bank statements, cheque copies, brochures, screenshots of advertisements, and any "approved" plan you were shown.
Run a title search. Check the khatian, mutation and registration records for the plot. This shows who really owns it and whether other deeds already exist.
Check the developer's status. Find out whether the company is registered under the Real Estate Development and Management Act, 2010, and whether the project has RAJUK or local authority approval.
Find other buyers. Others in the same project hold evidence you may not have, and a group carries more weight.
Do not sign anything new. Promoters often ask victims to sign "settlement" papers or accept post-dated cheques that weaken a later case.
Get legal advice before confronting the developer. A warning can give them time to transfer assets.
Immediate action plan: the first 90 days
The steps below turn those principles into a working timetable. Tick them off as you go.
Within 7 days: secure the evidence
☐ Collect bank statements and ask your bank for certified copies of every transfer to the developer. Payments made through a bank, as section 12 of the Act requires, are your strongest proof.
☐ Photograph or print every advertisement, Facebook post, brochure and WhatsApp message, with dates visible. Fraudsters often delete pages once complaints start.
☐ Write a dated, signed timeline of every meeting, promise and payment while your memory is fresh.
☐ Note the names, phone numbers and roles of every director, agent and employee you dealt with.
☐ If you receive threats, record a General Diary (GD) at the local police station.
Within 30 days: build the case
☐ Obtain certified copies of the khatian, mutation records and all registered deeds over the plot from the Sub-Registry and AC (Land) office. This reveals double sales, mortgages and khas status.
☐ Search the company at the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies (RJSC) for its directors, shareholders and registered address. These are the people to name personally under section 31.
☐ Check with RAJUK or the relevant authority whether the developer is registered and the project approved.
☐ Contact other buyers in the same project and agree on a joint approach.
☐ Serve a formal notice of arbitration under section 36, labelled as such and sent by registered post directly to the company and its directors, not to their lawyer. The High Court Division has held that an ordinary legal notice, or one sent to the other side's advocate, does not count.
Within 90 days: file and freeze
☐ File the criminal case: an FIR or complaint petition under the Penal Code, and a complaint petition before the Magistrate for offences under the 2010 Act.
☐ Ask the court or investigating agency to freeze the promoters' bank accounts and attach their property, including under the Money Laundering Prevention Act where the sums are large.
☐ Where there is a risk the promoters will flee, ask the investigating agency to seek a court order preventing them from leaving the country.
☐ File the civil claim or arbitration with an application for attachment before judgment and an injunction against further sale of the plot.
☐ Diarise limitation periods. Civil claims have strict time limits under the Limitation Act, 1908; a suit for specific performance, for example, must generally be filed within one year of the developer refusing to perform.
Criminal remedies: holding the promoters personally accountable
A criminal case puts direct pressure on the people behind the company, and it can lead to their arrest and the freezing of their assets. In the Holistic Builders matter, for example, CID filed a case and the deputy managing director was arrested.
Penal Code, 1860. The sections most often used are:
Sections 406 and 409, for criminal breach of trust over money entrusted for land and construction.
Section 420, for cheating.
Sections 467, 468 and 471, for forged deeds, plans or approvals.
Section 120B, for criminal conspiracy, which brings directors and agents into the case.
A case can start as an FIR at the police station or a complaint (CR) petition before the Magistrate. Where many buyers or large sums are involved, we ask for the investigation to go to CID or PBI.
Real Estate Development and Management Act, 2010. This Act creates offences specific to developers, including:
Doing real estate business without registration (section 19), punishable with up to two years' imprisonment, a fine of up to Tk 10 lakh, or both.
Starting a project without the authority's approval, or advertising or selling an unapproved project (section 20), with the same punishment.
Selling, for unlawful gain and without the buyer's knowledge, property promised to that buyer to someone else (section 24), punishable with up to three years' imprisonment, a fine of up to Tk 20 lakh, or both.
The fraudulent offence of taking no action after issuing an allotment letter, or abandoning the work without reason, while giving the buyer no financial benefit (section 27), punishable with up to two years' imprisonment, a fine of up to Tk 20 lakh, or both. The High Court Division has quashed a section 27 charge where the facts did not support it, so the complaint must set out these elements clearly.
Personal liability of any owner, director or officer of the company with whose knowledge and participation the offence was committed (section 31).
Offences under the Act are non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable (section 32). This means the case starts as a complaint petition before a first class or metropolitan Magistrate, not as an FIR, and is tried summarily (section 33). Importantly for victims, the court may order up to 50% of any fine recovered to be paid to the buyer (section 35). For arrest and police investigation, the Penal Code offences above remain essential.
Land Crime Prevention and Remedy Act, 2023. This newer law targets forged land documents, selling land beyond one's ownership, and fraud involving government land. It is especially relevant where the same plot was sold many times or the land was khas.
Money Laundering Prevention Act, 2012. Fraud and forgery are predicate offences under this Act. That opens the door to freezing and attaching the promoters' bank accounts and property. In practice, this is often the most effective way to make sure money is still there to recover. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, a court that convicts can also direct that a fine be used to compensate victims.
Civil remedies: getting your money or property back
A criminal case punishes the wrongdoer, but recovering your money usually needs a civil claim as well.
Settlement and arbitration under section 36. For disputes over the offences in sections 21 to 25 and 27 to 30, or over breach of the agreement, the parties must first try to settle. If that fails because the other side will not cooperate, the buyer serves notice of intention to go to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 2001. The developer must join in forming the tribunal within 30 days. The award is binding and cannot be challenged in court. If the developer fails to form the tribunal, the buyer may file a case in the appropriate court. In fraud cases, where developers rarely cooperate, this often opens the way to court quickly.
Refund with compensation. If the developer fails to hand over the property on time, section 15 requires it to refund everything the buyer paid, with compensation, within six months by account payee cheque. If the agreement does not fix the compensation, the law sets it at 15% of the total paid, calculated up to the date of repayment. Separately, a buyer who chooses to cancel can claim a refund under section 17, less a 10% deduction, within three months. For fraud victims, section 15 is usually the stronger claim.
Specific performance and cancellation of deeds. If your agreement for sale or land share was registered, you may be able to ask the court to compel the transfer. You can also seek a declaration of your title and cancellation of later fraudulent deeds over the same land under the Specific Relief Act, 1877.
The registration problem. Most land-share agreements are never registered. Under the Registration Act and section 21A of the Specific Relief Act, an unregistered agreement for sale cannot be enforced by specific performance. For these buyers, the realistic aims are a refund, damages and the criminal route. This is exactly why early advice matters.
Freezing assets during the case. Alongside any suit or claim, the court can be asked to:
attach the developer's property before judgment;
grant a temporary injunction stopping further sale of the plot; and
apply the rule of lis pendens, so that transfers made while the case is pending do not defeat your claim.
Acting as a group. Where many buyers share the same grievance, a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure lets a few buyers sue on behalf of all. This cuts costs and increases pressure.
Winding up the company. Where the developer company is insolvent, a creditor can petition the High Court Division under the Companies Act, 1994. A liquidator then takes control of the remaining assets for distribution.
What the courts have said
The Supreme Court's decisions draw one line again and again: a broken promise is a civil matter, but deception from the start is a crime. How the case is framed decides which side of that line it falls.
| Case | What the court held | What it means for victims |
|---|---|---|
| Adv. Abu Saleh Ahmadul Hasan v The State, 19 SCOB [2024] HCD 161 | Quashed a section 27 case against a developer: the buyer had not paid in full and alleged only unfinished work, so there was no initial cheating. A legal notice sent to the developer's advocate was not a valid notice of arbitration. | Show that you paid and that the developer abandoned the project or sold your unit elsewhere. Serve a proper arbitration notice, addressed directly to the company. |
| State v Md Iqbal Hossain, 48 DLR (AD) 100 | A contract usually gives rise to civil liability, but a party can also face criminal charges if the elements of an offence are present. Intention at the time may be judged from later conduct. | Selling the same plot to many buyers, or vanishing with the money, is evidence of fraudulent intent from the start. |
| Arifur Rahman alias Bablu v Shantosh Kumar Sadhu, 46 DLR (AD) 180 | Cheating requires an initial intention to deceive, gathered from the surrounding circumstances. | The complaint must set out the false promises made before payment, such as a fake approval or land the seller did not own. |
| Md Rafique v Syed Morshed Hossain, 50 DLR (AD) 163 | Upheld quashing of a 406/420 case where no initial deception was alleged. | A complaint that only says "they did not deliver" is vulnerable. |
| Shafiullah Chowdhury v The State, 14 MLR (2009) (HC) 490 | Mere failure to execute a sale deed under an agreement for sale is a civil liability, not cheating. | Victims of simple delay should pursue civil remedies; criminal cases need more. |
| Amjad Molla v Syeduzzaman Molla, 46 DLR (AD) 17 | A seller who had already sold her land and then executed an ante-dated deed of the same land to another was guilty of forgery. | Double sales backed by later deeds can support forgery charges, not just cheating. |
| Khizir Haider v The State, 13 MLR (2008) (AD) 157 | Allegations of forgery are matters for trial, so the proceedings could not be quashed before charge. | Cases built on forged plans or deeds are harder for promoters to have quashed early. |
| Mark Parco v The State, 13 MLR (2008) (HC) 350 | A criminal case filed after a money suit over the same matter was quashed as harassment. | Plan the criminal and civil tracks together from the start, with the deception clearly pleaded. |
| Dr Syed Mustafa Malek v Russell Lodge Holdings Ltd (HCD, Company Bench) | The arbitration clause in section 36 did not bar winding up a developer that had stopped functioning, and the company was wound up because its substratum was gone. | Where the developer has collapsed and its directors have left, winding up is open even if section 36 applies. |
The constitutional validity of the provisions of the 2010 Act that restrict buyers' direct lawsuits has also been challenged by writ, and the High Court Division issued a rule. Until that is decided, the procedure in section 36 must be followed carefully.
Case citations are taken from published digests and reports. We verify each authority against the full report before relying on it in court.
Administrative and constitutional routes
These routes do not usually return money on their own, but they stop further harm and support the court cases.
RAJUK or the local development authority. A complaint about an unapproved project can lead to stop-work orders and closure. RAJUK has said it will act on complaints, and several illegal land-share projects have reportedly been shut down in recent months.
REHAB. REHAB can mediate disputes, but only with its member companies. Many fraudulent land-share firms are not members, which leaves REHAB unable to act against them.
Writ petition in the High Court Division. Where a public authority fails to act, or officials are involved, as alleged in some khas land cases, a writ under Article 102 of the Constitution can compel action.
Why strategy and speed matter
The buyers who recover the most usually run criminal, civil and asset-freezing steps together from the start.
Common mistakes we see:
Waiting too long. Each month of delay gives promoters time to sell assets, move money abroad or leave the country. In the Sylhet case, the company's chairman reportedly moved to the UK.
Filing only a criminal case. A conviction does not by itself return your money. A parallel civil claim and an attachment order protect recovery.
Filing only a civil claim. Without criminal pressure, a developer has little reason to settle.
Weak complaint drafting. Courts have quashed cases where the complaint showed only a broken promise, not cheating from the outset.
Accepting informal settlements. Post-dated cheques and "new plot" offers often buy the fraudster time.
Every case is different. Whether your agreement was registered, whether the developer was registered and the project approved, and who actually owns the land all change which remedies are open to you.
Before you buy: a checklist
If you are considering a land-share project, a lawyer's review before you pay costs far less than a lawsuit afterwards. Check these points first:
☐ The developer is registered under section 5 of the Real Estate Development and Management Act, 2010, and its registration number appears in the prospectus.
☐ The developer is a REHAB member.
☐ The project has the authority's approval, and the approval number and date appear in the prospectus. The law forbids advertising or selling before approval (section 6).
☐ The developer has shown you the approval and the land ownership documents, as section 6(4) requires.
☐ The khatian, mutation and title deeds show the seller actually owns the land, with no other sales or mortgages recorded. A mortgaged property cannot be sold to a buyer (section 16).
☐ Your share of the land will be transferred to you by a registered deed. The law requires handover, deed and registration within three months of full payment (section 9).
☐ Your agreement for sale is registered, so it can be enforced in court.
☐ All payments go through a bank, as section 12 requires, never in cash to individuals.
How The Justice Corner can help
The Justice Corner acts for buyers in land and real estate fraud from the first complaint to final recovery. Our work includes:
reviewing your documents and running a full title search on the land;
drafting and filing the criminal case, and pressing for a CID or PBI investigation;
seeking freezing and attachment of the promoters' assets;
bringing arbitration, refund, compensation or title claims, and representative suits for buyer groups;
writ petitions before the High Court Division where authorities fail to act; and
pre-purchase due diligence for anyone considering a land-share project.
If you or your family have been affected, contact us for a consultation. Bring whatever documents you have; we will tell you plainly which remedies are open to you and what to do next.
Mohammad Imam Hossain (Tareq) Advocate, Supreme Court of Bangladesh Barrister-at-Law (Middle Temple) Head of Chamber, The Justice Corner, Dhaka
This article is general information, not legal advice for any particular case. The law and its application depend on the facts; please consult a lawyer about your own situation.