SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Gau) 12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, SOUMITRA SAIKIA, JJ.
Partha Pratim Das S/o Late Prafulla Kr. Das – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5388 of 2021
Decided On : 06-01-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Ms. S.B. Choudhury.
For the Respondents: Mr. P. Sarma, Mr. S. Dutta, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Mr. D.J. Das.

Point of Law: In no uncertain terms that where the land use is changed or the development is done without permission of the authority, the land has to be restored to its original condition.

Headnote:

Assam Municipal Act, 1956 - Section 296 and 177 - Assam Town and Country Planning Act, 1959 - Demolition of unauthorised Construction/building - Power to suspend action under Act - Authority - Whether construction made by respondent No. 5 being non-compoundable can still be compounded for reason given by appellate authority that demolition of the building would be risky - Order passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, who is appellate authority under Act, 1956 (in appeal being M.A. Case) - By said order, earlier order passed by Executive Officer of Silchar Municipal Board for demolition of unauthorised building has been set aside - But before court come to merits of case and examine relevant Building Laws and legality of impugned order, we must note down some relevant facts which are absolutely material for adjudication of present case - Challenged.

Finding of the Court:

Section 296 of the Act of 1956 is only applicable in exceptional circumstances and such circumstances have not been reflected in order of appellate authority. No reasons has been assigned as to why the order of the Executive Officer dated 12.11.2020 has been stayed. Moreover, this Court also noticed that owner of building, i.e. respondent No. 5 herein had not apprised the appellate authority about the pendency of the PIL and the orders passed in the PIL by this Court - There is a finding of Executive Officer based on reports of Assistant Engineer and survey done that construction is unauthorised and not compoundable. Having reached conclusion, therefore, the only solution is demolition of unauthorised construction in a scientific manner so that it is reduced to minimum risk - Therefore, no other option but to quash the order of the appellate authority and direct the Silchar Municipal Board to demolish building by applying necessary scientific methods, such as use of Diamond Saw Cutting machine, etc. to remove/minimise any risk - Impugned order passed by appellate authority is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, order passed by Executive Officer, Municipal Board restored.

Result: Writ Petition disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

1. Heard Ms. S.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Sarma, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 4, Mr. Sishir Dutta, learned senior Standing Counsel, Silchar Municipal Board, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.J. Das, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 20.08.2021 (Annexure-VIII to the writ petition) passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, who is the appellate authority under the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 [in appeal, being M.A. Case No. 07/2020, Sri. Biswajit Roy vs. The Executive Officer, Silchar Municipal Board]. By the said order, the earlier order dated 12.11.2020 passed by the Executive Officer of Silchar Municipal Board (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Board’) for demolition of unauthorised building has been set aside. But before we come to the merits of the case and examine the relevant Building Laws and the legality of the impugned order, we must note down some relevant facts which are absolutely material for the adjudication of the present case.

3. A public interest litigation, being PIL No. 21/2020 was filed before this Court by a group of petitioners who were nine in number, and are residents of Silchar, which is a town in the district of Cachar in Barak Valley of Assam. The case of the petitioners was that an unauthorised construction of a commercial building was being made in Silchar, which is against the Building Laws and is causing disturbance in the neighbourhood and the petitioners being the residents of Silchar were aggrieved by this construction. They thus prayed for an interference and appropriate order of this Court in this PIL.

4. This Court vide its order dated 06.03.2020 took cognizance of the matter and passed the following order:

    “1. Nine petitioners claiming to be residents of Silchar, District Cachar, have preferred this petition in public interest with the plea that illegal construction of commercial nature is going on, unchecked, and is against the existing rules and regulation, viz. Assam Notified Urban Areas (other than Guwahati) Building Rules, 1914 and Assam Municipal Act, 1956. It has further been pleaded that the gap between buildings is supposed to be 10 feet, however the same has not been maintained. Extra floors are being constructed on commercial buildings which is also in violation of the regulations. Under the Municipal laws, construction can cover 40% of the total land area, however 80% of the land area has been covered as is depicted from photographs placed on record from Page Nos.16 to 18. It has been pleaded that such construction other than being in violation of relevant laws, is likely to cause loss of life, in case of fire, earthquake etc.

2. Considering the nature of the issue, we hereby direct the Deputy Commissioner, Cachar, Silchar and Chairman, Silchar Municipal Board, Cachar to forthwith conduct a survey in Shyama Prasad Road, Shillong Patti, Silchar and file their individual separate affidavits clearly indicating whether compliances of the relevant rules and regulations have been made or not.

In case, the buildings have been constructed in violation of the rules and regulations, the names and designations of the officers who are responsible for ensuring construction in accordance with rules and regulations be specified so that responsibility can be fixed.

3. We further direct that in case the construction is against the municipal and other laws, appropriate action, in accordance with law be taken.

4. Notice be issued to respondent No. 4.

5. List on 30.03.2020, high up on the list.

6. Respondent No. 1 appears to have been wrongly defined. Respondent No. 1 would read as “State of Assam, Commissioner

                      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                      1
                      2
                      3
                      4
                      5
                      6
                      7
                      8
                      9
                      10
                      11
                      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                      supreme today icon
                      logo-black

                      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                      Please visit our Training & Support
                      Center or Contact Us for assistance

                      qr

                      Scan Me!

                      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                      whatsapp-icon Back to top