Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 433
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Vijay Bishnoi, CJ., N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
Binod Hazarika S/o Late Bhuban Hazarika - Appellant
VERSUS
The Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Rep. By Its Chief Executive Officer, Bhangagarh, Guwahati - Respondent
WA/116/2025
Decided On : 07-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MS. V RAI, MR.T YADAV,JYOTISH DAS,MS P DEY,MR. S P ROY
For the Respondent: SC, GMC, SC, G M D A
The court upheld the eviction notice issued by the authorities, affirming the need for due process while recognizing the appellant's long-term possession.
Headnote:(A) Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 - Sections 2(d), 124, and 125(1)(b) - Intra-Court appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging eviction notice - Appellant claimed continuous possession since 1973 based on earlier communication allowing occupation - Court found no jurisdictional error in eviction notice and upheld the dismissal of the writ petition. (Paras 2-16)
(B) Jurisdiction of Authorities - The court emphasized that the authorities must follow due process of law for eviction, and the appellant's long-term possession was acknowledged but did not negate the authority's right to evict. (Paras 6, 12)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a retired employee of GMC, occupied premises since 1973 based on a communication from GMDA, was later directed to vacate due to staff accommodation needs. The appellant challenged the eviction notice in a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the appellant's challenge, affirming the authority's right to issue the eviction notice and directing due process for eviction.
Issues: The main issues included the jurisdiction of GMDA to evict the appellant and the validity of the eviction notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the eviction notice was valid and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error, emphasizing the need for due process in eviction.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
Heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel, along with Ms. Vaishali Rai, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. Devajit Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. S. Bora, learned standing counsel, Guwahati Municipal Corporation(GMC), appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
2. The present intra-Court appeal has been instituted by the appellant, herein, assailing the judgment & order, dated 07.01.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)4770/2014, rejecting the challenge made by the appellant to the communication, dated 05.08.2014, issued by the respondent No. 2, requiring him to vacate the premises occupied by him.
3. The appellant, herein, in WP(c)4770/2014, has projected that he was an employee of Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) and while serving as a Senior License Officer, had retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.05.2009. The appellant was vide communication, dated 13.05.1973, issued by the Chairman, Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority(GMDA), allowed to occupy a RCC double-storied building pending finalization of his application, praying for allotment of a house at the Development Colony.
4. The appellant, herein, has contended that in pursuance of the said communication, dated 13.05.1973, he had occupied the premises, in question, and continued to occupy the same. The respondents No. 1 & 2 had vide communication, dated 22.06.2012, required the appellant, herein, to vacate the premises occupied by him, in-as-much as, the staff of the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority(GMDA) were submitting applications for accommodation and accordingly, the appellant was directed to vacate the quarter under his occupation within 30.06.2012. The appellant, herein, on 26.06.2012, had submitted his reply to the communication, dated 22.06.2012. The said communication was duly noticed by the respondents No. 1 & 2 and thereafter, vide communication, dated 05.08.2014, a notice came to be issued to the appellant by the respondents No. 1 & 2, requiring him to vacate the quarter under his occupation within 1(one) month from the date of receipt of the notice.
5. Being aggrieved, the appellant, herein, had approached the writ Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)4770/2014. The writ Court, vide order, dated 18.09.2014, had, in the interim, protected the interest of the appellant and he, accordingly, continued to remain in occupation of the premises, in question. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, took up the said writ petition being WP(c)4770/2014, for final consideration and upon hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also on perusal of the materials brought on record, was pleased vide judgment & order, dated 07.01.2025, to dismiss the said writ petition, rejecting the challenge made, therein, to the communication, dated 05.08.2014.
6. The learned Single Judge vide judgment & order, dated 07.01.2025, in WP(c)4770/2014, had further directed the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 1 to evict the appellant, herein, only by following the due process of law i.e. by applying the applicable provisions of law. The interim directions passed earlier, also came to be vacated.
7. Assailing the judgment & order, dated 07.01.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)4770/2014; Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the appellant being in possession of the premises with effect from the year 1973; the respondent authorities could not have only by way of issuance of a notice, contemplated to evict the appellant, herein, from the premises, in question.
8. Mr. Roy, learned counsel, by referring to the provisions of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, has submitted that the said Act of 1971 had come into force w.e.f. 18.01.1973, and accordingly, in terms of sub-Section 2(d) of Section 2 of the said Act; the Guwahati Metro
