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

2025 Supreme(Gau) 215

THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
VIJAY BISHNOI, CJ, N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J
Atiqul Hussain S/o Lt. Jalal Uddin Sarkar - Appellant
Versus
Dhubri Municipal Board And 4 Ors. - Respondent
WA 38 / 2025
Decided On : 12-02-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: MD. M H CHOUDHURY, MR. S N AHMED,TANZIM L. CHOUDHURY,MR MONZUR K CHOUDHURY,MR. P CHAKRABORTY
For the Respondent: MR. P S BHATTACHARYYA, S S AHMED (R-3),MR. M U MONDAL (R-3),MR. P S BHATTACHARYYA (R-1)

IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the cancellation of a stall allotment due to unpaid rent, ruling it was not heritable and emphasized the need for transparency in allotment processes.

Headnote:

(A) Municipal Laws - Allotment of stall - Cancellation of allotment due to non-payment of rent - The father of the appellant was allotted Stall No. 2 in Lainey Municipal Market, with conditions prohibiting transfer without permission. Rent was in arrears for 7 months leading to cancellation. The Single Judge upheld the cancellation but set aside the allotment to another party due to lack of transparency in the process. (Paras 3 , 16 , 19 , 22 )

(B) Inheritance Rights - Legal heir's claim for allotment post-cancellation - The court found that the allotment was not heritable and the appellant could not claim the stall as a legal heir after cancellation during the original allottee's lifetime. (Paras 20 , 21 )

(C) Fairness in Allotment Process - The allotment to a third party was set aside due to failure to publish the notice widely, which was deemed unfair. (Paras 17 , 19 )

Facts of the case:

The appellant's father was allotted a stall which was cancelled due to unpaid rent. The father later passed away, and the appellant contested the cancellation and subsequent allotment to another party.

Findings of Court:

The cancellation was upheld, and the allotment to the third party was set aside for lack of transparency.

Issues: The key issues were the validity of the cancellation of the stall's allotment and the appellant's right to claim the stall as a legal heir.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the allotment was not heritable and upheld the cancellation due to valid reasons, while also ensuring a fair process for future allotments.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Mr. Shahjamal Nawaj Ahmed, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. S. Bhattacharya, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 & 2; and Mr. M. U. Mondal, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3.

2. The appellant, herein, by way of instituting the present intra-Court appeal, has presented a challenge to a judgment & order, dated 16.12.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)4592/2018, dismissing the same.

3. The facts leading to the institution of WP(c)4592/2018 is noticed, as under:

    The father of the present appellant Amjad Hussain was allotted a stall being Stall No. 2 in Lainey Municipal Market, Dhubri Town, and was operating a retail-cum-stationery shop therein. The allotment as made in favour of the father of the appellant, was extended from time to time by the authorities of Dhubri Municipal Board. The last extension of such allotment was made vide order, dated 01.02.2013. The order of allotment was made in favour of the father of the appellant, including orders of extension thereof, prescribed that the stall, in question, shall not be transferred and/or sub-let to any other authority without the prior written permission of the authorities of Dhubri Municipal Board. Further, in the agreement so entered into for the purpose of allotment of the stall, it was stipulated that in the event, the rent for the stall, in question, remains in arrears for a period of 3 months, the allotment of the stall, would be liable to be cancelled.
    It is seen from the materials brought on record, that the respondent No. 5 had approached the authorities of Dhubri Municipal Board, vide communication, dated 17.07.2016, requesting for transfer of the said stall in his favour, who projected himself as the business partner of the father of the appellant. It was also stipulated in the said communication that the stall, in question, was handed over to him by the father of the appellant, by executing an affidavit. The authorities of Dhubri Municipal Board on receipt of the said communication, dated 17.07.2016, convened a meeting. However, it is seen that both the father of the appellant and the respondent No. 5 did not participate in such meetings. Thereafter, the authorities of Dhubri Municipal Board, vide communication, dated 15.05.2018, proceeded to intimate the father of the appellant that the rent of the stall, in question, being in arrears for a period of 7 months; a resolution was adopted by Dhubri Municipal Board for cancellation of the allotment of the said stall so given to the father of the appellant, and accordingly, the father of the appellant, was directed to handover the possession of the said stall to the authorities of Dhubri Municipal Board.
    Pursuant to the cancellation of the stall, in question, it is seen that the authorities of Dhubri Municipal Board had issued a Notice, dated 19.06.2018, inviting applications for allotment of the said Stall No. 2 of Lainey Municipal Market, Dhubri. In pursuance of the said Notice, it is found that the said stall was allotted in favour of respondent No. 3 at the rate so quoted by him in terms of the Notice, dated 19.06.2018.
    Being aggrieved by the cancellation of the allotment so made in his favour vide the communication, dated 15.05.2018, as well as the allotment of the said stall in favour of respondent No. 3, herein; the father of the appellant, had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)4592/2018. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the father of the appellant, had expired on 09.03.2022, and accordingly, the appellant being his legal heir, substituted himself as the petitioner in the proceeding of WP(c)4592/ 2018.
    The learned Single Judge on considering the issues arising in the said WP(c)4592/2018; was pleased to uphold the cancellation of the allotment so made in f


      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