THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Manish Choudhury, J.
Srimati Putul Kalita W/o Late Padma Ram Kalita - Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of Assam And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C)/1714/2025
Decided On : 04-04-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - GMDA Act, 1985 - Writ petition challenging the order for demolition of unauthorized construction - Petitioner purchased land with pre-existing structures; disputes arose over construction by respondent - Petitioner alleged unauthorized actions by respondent and sought annulment of partition and patta - Court found adequate statutory remedy available through appeal under GMDA Act - No coercive action to be taken for one month to allow for appeal. (Paras 22, 24, 26)
(B) Statutory Remedies - The court emphasized the importance of availing statutory remedies before pursuing writ petitions, particularly when disputed questions of fact arise. (Paras 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner purchased land with existing structures and later faced disputes with the respondent over unauthorized construction and partition issues, leading to a demolition order.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the petitioner has an adequate statutory remedy under the GMDA Act and thus did not entertain the writ petition.
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner could challenge the demolition order through a writ petition or should pursue statutory remedies available under the GMDA Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner should utilize the statutory appeal process available under the GMDA Act, as it provides an adequate remedy for the grievances raised.
Result: Writ petition disposed of, with liberty to appeal.
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Heard Mr. W. Raja, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority [GMDA] for the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6; and Ms. S. Baruah, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 5 & 7.
2. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has stated that the petitioner and her daughter [the respondent no. 8] purchased a plot of land measuring 1 Katha 5 Lessas, covered by Dag no. 278 & Patta no. 123, situate at Sahar – Bharalumukh Part-II, Mouza – Jalukbari, Guwahati Revenue Circle [‘the subject-plot’, for short] by way of a registered Sale Deed no. 4471 dated 10.11.1994. After the purchase, the subject-plot got mutated in the name of the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 jointly by an Order dated 24.03.1995 passed in Mutation Case no. 273/1994-1995 by the respondent no. 7. At the time of purchase of the subject-plot, there were one pre-existing RCC [G+1] building and one RCC Assam type house attached with the RCC building on the subject-plot.
3. The petitioner has further stated that there was no mention in the Sale Deed regarding the individual shares of the petitioner and the respondent no. 8. There was, however, a mutual settlement agreement dated 04.11.1999 between the petitioner and the respondent no. 8, which contained a condition of erecting a partition wall by the respondent no. 8 between the lands of the petitioner and the respondent no. 8.
4. The petitioner has stated that since the registration of the Sale Deed, the petitioner with her son has been staying in the pre-existing RCC [G+1] building and the respondent no. 8 was residing in the pre-existing RCC Assam type house. The petitioner has further stated that in February, 2019, the respondent no. 8 started demolishing the pre-existing RCC Assam type house to construct a new RCC building in its place. After demolishing the pre-existing Assam type house, the respondent no. 8 started laying foundation of a new multi-storied RCC building. The petitioner has alleged that in the process of demolishing the RCC Assam type house and laying the foundation of the new multi-storied RCC building, a common wall existing between the two houses started got due to not following the mandate of building construction like not leaving minimum side margins and by laying foundation of the posts of the new multi-storied RCC building underneath the pre-existing RCC building wherein the petitioner stays.
5. The petitioner has stated that highlighting the unauthorized nature of construction carried out by the respondent no. 8, the petitioner [i] lodged a First Information Report [FIR] before the Officer In-Charge, Bharalumukh Police Station on 03.07.2019; [ii] submitted a nos. of applications / complaints / reminders before the Commissioner / Associate Planner, Guwahati Municipal Corporation informing about the illegal construction carried out by the respondent no. 8; and [iii] submitted an application before the Chief Executive Officer, GMDA for demolition of the construction carried out by the respondent no. 8. The petitioner has further alleged that the respondent no. 8, without the knowledge of the petitioner, got the subject-plot partitioned by initiating a partition case and got a separate patta issued in her name. Having learnt about the partition and issuance of separate patta, the petitioner stated to have instituted a case, Misc. Case no. 29/2022 before the respondent no. 7 for annulment of the separate patta and cancellation of the order of partition. The petitioner has further alleged that the separate patta was issued without carrying out any demarcation process.
6. The petitioner has further contended that though a separate patta was obtained by the respondent no. 8 on 24.05.2010, the office of the respondent no. 3 had issued a No Objection Certificate [NOC] under Section 25 of the GMDA Act, 1945 for construction of t
The court emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies under the GMDA Act before pursuing a writ petition, particularly in cases involving disputed facts.
A writ petition is not maintainable when an adequate statutory remedy exists; the petitioner must pursue the appeal process under the GMDA Act.
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....
Demolition orders under the GMDA Act must comply with principles of natural justice, including proper notice and opportunity for the affected party to be heard.
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....
Unauthorized constructions cannot be legitimized by time or inaction; strict enforcement of demolition orders is essential to uphold the rule of law.
A structure without a sanctioned plan is unauthorized, irrespective of its age; such constructions cannot gain legality from their longevity.
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.