In context of law, wide use definition on settlement is absent. From the legal views, the word settlement uses as the word ‘building’. Both the words preserve different meaning in context of use, development and planning. The word legal-gap inherent with this different meaning. According to the section 2(b) of the Building Construction Act, 1952, definition of settlement presents as “house, out-house, hut, wall and any other structure whether of masonry, bricks, corrugated iron sheets, metal, tiles, wood, bamboo’s, mud, leaves, grass, thatch or any other material whatsoever”.

In England, settlement includes “any structure or erection and any part of a building, structure or erection, but does not include plant or machinery comprises in a building.” It is a term wide enough to include many things not ordinarily regarded as such. In the court case between Buckinghamshire County Council Vs. Callingham, a model village held to have involved settlement operations.  In an another court case between Cheshire County Council Vs. Woodward, the term ‘building’ defines that, “nothing can be regarded as a building unless it is a structure or erection, which can be, said to form part of the reality and to change the physical characteristics of the land”.

In Bangladesh, the word ‘building’ defines with all of its ancillary services in different type of enactments. However, buildings in urban areas or rural areas confines in same definition whether the enactments are different. A sharp difference between Bangladesh, India and England regarding the definition of buildings prevail. This variation proves social, cultural and economic variation among those countries.