ORDER

Date : 20.06.2021 Heard Mrs. D. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Bora, learned standing counsel for the respondent no.1, Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent no.2 and Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC appearing for respondent no.3.

2) Apprehending imminent threat of demolition of the house of the petitioner without any prior notice, this matter has been listed at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner, who was granted permission to move this writ petition on a holiday on account of urgency expressed.

3) By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner projects that the house, in which he is presently residing was allotted to his father while in service with the Government Railway Police (GRP for short). His father retired from service on 30.06.2017, but continued to reside in the allotted quarter with his family. It is projected that the land over which the house of the petitioner is standing was taken over by the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) sometime in the year 2014-15. It is the case of the petitioner that except for the petitioner, all others who were on the land were shifted to a nearby building. The learned counsel for the petitioner projects that without any prior notice of eviction, the houses and structures in the vicinity of the petitioner were demolished on 19.06.2021, but as it had become dark, the house of the petitioner was left out and the petitioner apprehends imminent demolition of his house resulting in his eviction in course of the day today.

4) By referring to the order dated 10.05.2021 passed by the Full Bench of this Court in PIL (Suo Motu) 3/2021, it is submitted that the process of eviction/ dispossession or demolition passed by any Court, Tribunal or authority during this pandemic period had been kept in abeyance subject to any specific orders which may have been passed in a given case. Accordingly, it is submitted that the petitioner may be protected from eviction during this pandemic period.

5) Opposing this application, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate submits that he was telephonically intimated by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metropolitan) at about 11.45 a.m. that the demolition process has already been completed prior to 11.45 a.m. today. Accordingly, it is submitted that on such demolition, the present writ petition has become infructuous. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no right, title, or interest over the land in question, which was allotted to his father, who had superannuated and is not before this Court.

6) The learned standing counsel for the respondent no.1 submits that although he could not obtain any instruction as to the present status of the house of the petitioner, but in view of the specific stand taken by the learned Senior Govt. Advocate, he supports the submission made by the learned Senior Govt. Advocate that the matter has become infructuous and opposes passing of any interim relief in this writ petition.

7) Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC submits that the projected case of the petitioner is that the GMDA has taken over the site, as such, his presence is only to ensure that no adverse orders may be passed against the interest of the respondent no.3.

8) Let a notice returnable on 25.06.2021 be issued.

9) As the learned Senior Government Advocate and Standing Counsel for the respondents have accepted notice, requisite extra copies of this writ petition with all enclosures be furnished to them in course of the day.

10) By the time this matter has been taken up and heard, it is about 12.10 in the afternoon. The Court has taken note of the submissions made by the learned Senior Govt. Advocate that the demolition process has already concluded. However, as the learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the house of the petitioner is still standing, and that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner, the Court is inclined to pass an inter