Unauthorized constructions must be demolished, and the requirement for valid permits is strictly upheld under the applicable Building Rules.

JUDGMENT :

(MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.)

Invoking the extra-ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under the Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has instituted the instant writ petition seeking inter alia setting aside and quashing of a demolition notice dated 16.06.2023 [Annexure – 6] and also, for a direction in the nature of mandamus to the authorities in the respondent Tinsukia Municipal Board not to give effect to the impugned demolition notice dated 16.06.2023. Further directions in the nature of mandamus have been sought to direct the respondent no. 2 to comply with the direction made in a common Judgment & Order dated 23.03.2023 passed in two writ appeals, Writ Appeal no. 41/2023 and Writ Appeal no. 63/2023; and to compound the deviation of the construction of the building under reference.

2. The background facts leading to the issuance of the impugned demolition notice dated 16.06.2023 can be narrated, in brief, at first, as the impugned demolition notice is an outcome of a previous round of litigation between the parties which culminated in the common Judgment & Order dated 23.03.2023, referred above.

3. The petitioner herein is the owner of a plot of land, covered by Dag no.716 & Periodic Patta no. 525, situate at Tinsukia Township No. 26, Chirapatty City College Road, Tinsukia [‘the subject-plot’, for short] and in the western side of the subject-plot, the respondent no. 5 has his own plot of land.

4. The petitioner in order to construct a building on the subject-plot applied before the erstwhile Tinsukia Development Authority in the year 2011 for permission to construct a residential ‘G+1’ RCC building. The Tinsukia Development Authority granted permission to the petitioner to construct a ‘G+1’ RCC building on the subject-plot specifying that the area of the ground floor should be 840.25 square feet. The building permission granted on 29.09.2011, was valid up-to 29.09.2013.

5. The petitioner did not complete the construction within the period of validity of the original building permission granted up-to 29.09.2013. Subsequently, when the petitioner resumed construction of the ‘G+1’ RCC building, the respondent no. 5 on 14.12.2020 submitted a complaint before the respondent no. 3 seeking stoppage of construction of the petitioner’s ‘G+1’ RCC building stating that the petitioner had flouted the laid down norms. On the basis of the complaint dated 14.12.2020 of the respondent no. 5, the petitioner was served a notice on 15.12.2020 by the respondent Municipal Board asking him to submit the construction permission and to stop further construction work. In response to the notice dated 15.12.2020 the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent no. 3 on 05.02.2021 seeking renewal of his building construction permission. While seeking renewal of his building construction permission, the petitioner in his Letter dated 05.02.2021 had clearly admitted that the validity of his earlier building construction permission had already lapsed.

6. The alleged resumption of building construction by the petitioner led the respondent no. 5 to file a writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 227/2022 as the writ petitioner before this Court, wherein it was inter alia stated that the petitioner had been constructing his building in gross violation of the Assam Notified Urban Areas [Other than Guwahati] BUILDING RULES , 2014 [‘the BUILDING RULES , 2014’, for short]. The petitioner herein who was arrayed as party-respondent no. 5 in