IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Sufal Kumar Dutt S/o Lt. Apurba Kumar Dutta And Anr – Appellants
Versus
Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority and 2 Ors – Respondent
WP(C) 6736 of 2013
Decided on : 21-09-2023
Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 - Section 416(i) - Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1985 - Section 87, 88(4), 25 - Unauthorized construction - Demolish unauthorized portion of building - Writ petition has been filed challenging order issued by Chief Executive Officer whereby Petitioners were directed to demolish unauthorized portion of building and stop unauthorized use of the same – Held, Court cannot also be unmindful of fact that if use of building is changed to which have been assessed by GMC all along as commercial, then permissible FAR (Floor Area Ratio) to which Petitioners would be entitled to would be higher than in respect to building wherein NOC was issued for residential purposes - It is not apparent from facts placed before this Court as to whether same building as it stood prior to NOC stands or said building was demolished and a new building was constructed after NOC inasmuch as if existing building was not demolished, it would mean that NOC was not put to use - These are questions of facts which can only be decided by a fact finding authority and such questions cannot be decided in present proceedings - Mere assessment being carried out by GMC Authorities for levying GMC Taxes would not legalize any illegal construction - Writ petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 15.11.2013 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority whereby the Petitioners herein were directed to demolish the unauthorized portion of the building and stop the unauthorized use of the same within 5 days from the receipt of the order failing which the GMDA would be free to proceed with demolition of the unauthorized portion of the building or sealing of the premises of the unauthorized construction and use of the building on its own without giving any further intimation; and expenses thereof shall be recovered from the Petitioners.
2. The facts involved in the instant case as could be seen from a perusal of the pleadings available on record are that one Shri Nirmal Kr. Sen vide a registered Deed of Sale bearing Deed No.2459/1989 transferred a plot of land measuring 15 Lechas covered by Dag No.1758(old), Medi Kheraj Patta No.842(new), Dag No.914 (new) included in Patta No.1540 situated at Krishna Nagar, Girija Das Colony, Paltan Bazar, Guwahati under Mouza Sahar Guwahati, Block No.II along with a RCC building standing thereon assessed as Holding No.64 of Ward No.18 of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation.
3. The record further reveals that the Holding No.64 pertaining to a RCC two storied building and the first floor was assessed as Holding No.127 and the year of construction was 1978 and 1981. This aspect of the matter is apparent from Annexure-A of the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the Town Planner Guwahati, GMDA.
4. It further reveals from the records that pursuant to the Deed of Sale dated 07.07.1989, the land was mutated in the name of Apurba Kumar Dutta (since deceased) and Arun Kumar Daw (since deceased). The Holding No.64 of Ward No.18 was also mutated in the names of Late Apurba Kumar Dutta and Late Arun Kumar Daw by bifurcating the said Holding No.64 into holding No.64A and 64B respectively. It further reveals from the records which pertains to the Assessment Registers for the third quarter of 2007-08 and third quarter of 201011, in respect to holding No.64B, the description of the building has been shown as RCC three storied building with the year of construction as 1997. The records also shows that on 15.02.2006, Late Apurba Kumar Dutta expired and on 1st of May, 2009, Late Arun Kumar Daw expired.
5. From a perusal of the writ petitions, there is no mention as regards the Petitioners’ knowledge as to when new constructions were carried out pursuant to the Deed of Sale executed on 07.07.1989. In the writ petition, what has been stated is that there was a construction carried out in the year 1997 on the basis of extracts of the Assessment Registers of the third quarter of 2007-08 and third quarter of 2010-11 which were obtained after the death of Late Apurba Kumar Dutta and Late Arun Kumar Daw.
6. The records further reveals that on 06.10.2012, a notice was issued by the Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation to the Petitioners herein stating inter alia that the Petitioners had undertaken/carried out development/erection or re-erection of RCC (Ground floor, Mezzanine floor, 1st floor and 2nd floor) building without the permission which is required to be obtained under the provisions of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 (for short, “the Act of 1971”) and the building byelaws framed under provisions of Section 416(i) of the said Act of 1971 as specified in the Schedule-A to the said notice. The Petitioners were directed to discontinue the undertaken works of erection forthwith and to show cause within 7 days as to why unauthorized construction/deviations should not be demolished.
7. Pursuant thereto, the Petitioners submitted a detailed reply on 15.10.2012. In the said reply, at paragraph No.3, it was mentioned that during the lifetime of Late Apurba Kumar Dutt and Late Arun Kumar Daw, they had constructed a three storied building over the said plot of land and the said building was c
Sujata Pathak Vs. State of Assam and Others reported in (2007) 2 GauLR 371
A development authority has jurisdiction over areas included in its master plan. Principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a hearing, are flexible; an order is not invalidated by the a....
The court emphasized the finality of orders passed by the Authority or the Appellate Officer, the deemed sanction under the Act of 1988, and the nature of disputed questions of facts.
Point of Law : Prevalent situation either in the limits of the Corporation, Municipality or the Panchayat if noticed, it would demonstrate clear apathy on the part of the Authorities towards the citi....
The Tribunal has the authority to compound minor building violations, and its findings on such matters are final, especially when the petitioner fails to act on submitted revised plans.
Point of Law : The assessment of a building to tax cannot legalise an illegal and unauthorisedly constructed building. Assessment of tax cannot operate as estoppel against the statutory power conferr....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.