Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 44
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Devashis Baruah, J.
Binod Hazarika, S/O. Lt. Bhuban Hazarika – Petitioner
Versus
The Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Rep. By Its Chief Executive Officer And Anr. – Respondents
WP(C)/4770/2014
Decided On : 07-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S. P. Roy, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Bora, SC, GMC & GMDA
The properties of the erstwhile GDA vested in GMDA post-dissolution, and eviction must follow due process of law.
Headnote:(A) Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1985 - Sections 124 and 125(1)(b) - Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 - Section 2(d) - Eviction from official quarter - Petitioner challenged eviction order claiming property belonged to GMC - Court found GMDA had statutory authority over property post-GDA dissolution - No merit in challenge to eviction order. (Paras 5, 9, 10, 11)
(B) Jurisdiction - Authority of GMDA over properties post-GDA dissolution established - Due process must be followed for eviction. (Paras 8, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was directed to vacate an official quarter by GMDA, claiming the property belonged to GMC and that eviction should follow due process. The petitioner alleged assurance of regularization of allotment by GMC.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the challenge to the eviction order and upheld GMDA's authority over the property.
Issues: The main issues were the jurisdiction of GMDA over the property and the legality of the eviction order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that GMDA had statutory authority over the property after the dissolution of GDA, and eviction must follow due process.
Result: Writ petition disposed of; eviction allowed under due process.
JUDGMENT :
Devashis Baruah, J.
Heard Mr. S. P. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S. Bora, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3.
2. The petitioner herein has assailed the communication dated 05.08.2014 whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate the official quarter of the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA).
3. From the materials on the record, it reveals that it is the case of the petitioner that the erstwhile Guwahati Development Authority (GDA) had planned a model township for landless people and displaced persons in order to accommodate such persons so that the encroachment over the hills, forest, land, wasteland etc. may be minimized. For that purpose, a project was started at Kharghuli. It is the further case of the petitioner that on account of certain reasons, the project could not be completed, and thereupon, most of the people either purchased the land or buildings from the erstwhile GDA. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was one of the aspirants and applied for housing accommodation in such official quarter. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) had assured that the petitioner's allotment would be regularized and used to realize the rent from the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been paying rent to the GMC, and thus, a tenant of the erstwhile GDA. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Chief Executive Officer of the GMDA had directed the petitioner to vacate the quarter vide the impugned order dated 05.08.2014 which could not have been done so taking into account that the property in question belonged to the GMC after the dissolution of the GDA.
4. The record reveals that pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, this Court issued notice and further directed that no coercive measures should be enforced to evict the petitioner from the official quarter.
5. The record reveals that an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the Secretary, GMDA stating inter-alia that by virtue of Section 125 (1) (b) of the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the Act of 1985’), all the properties belonging to the GDA vested upon the GMDA. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the authenticity of the letter on the basis of which the petitioner had claimed to be in possession of the said building was stated to be highly doubtful in as much as the land in question on which the building stands was purchased by the GDA on 27.03.1963 and the said land continued to remain a property of the GDA till it vested upon the GMDA by virtue of Section 125 (1) (b) of the Act of 1985. It is also averred that the petitioner has no right to remain in possession of the said premises, as the petitioner was neither an employee of the GMDA nor the petitioner was permitted to occupy the quarter in question. An additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner reiterated its stand to the effect that when the property belonged to the GMC by virtue of Section 2(d) of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act of 1971’), the GMDA had no authority over the said property in question.
6. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take note of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.
7. Mr. S. P. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the GMC is the authority who has the jurisdiction to take any steps against the petitioner as the quarter belongs to the GMC and not to the GMDA. In that regard, he referred to Section 2(d) of the Act of 1971 and submitted that by virtue of the said provision, all properties movable and immovable and all interests of whatsoever nature and kind therein vested in any of the aforesaid local authorities which would include the GDA, immediately before such establishment shall with all rights of whats
