JUDGMENT

Date : 30-01-2025

1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R.J. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr D Saikia, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. S Bora, learned counsel for the respondent GMDA & GMC. Also heard Mr. K.P Pathak, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D Gogoi, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

2. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

I. Setting aside the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) permit dated 10.09.2020, the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) permit dated 19.09.2020 being illegal on the ground that in the said permissions Tarun Nagar By Lane No.2 has been taken to be 8.35 meters ignoring the actual width of the road which resulted in FAR of 275 in favour of the respondent No. 5.

II. The decision of the respondent authorities to grant FAR of 275 (2.75) to respondent No.5 is also under challenge on the grounds of actual entitlement of FAR 175 (1.75).

3. The matter pertains to the construction/development of a residential apartment project in the Tarun Nagar locality of Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as “the Project”). As is clear from the prayers, the dispute revolves around the GMDA permission dated 10.09.2020 and the GMC permission dated 19.09.2020.

4. It is also revealed from the elaborate pleadings and arguments of the learned counsel for the parties that the project construction has a long litigation history and such facts are essential for proper determination of the present litigation. Therefore, before dealing with the elaborate arguments advanced by the learned senior counsels for the contesting parties, let this Court, record the facts in brief in the following paragraphs:-

I. The petitioner Meghmallar Estate &

Services Pvt. Ltd is a company registered under the Companies Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as Meghmallar). It is a builder/developer, who has built/developed various residential/commercial projects in the city of Guwahati.

II. The respondent No.5, namely, M/S Protech Housing is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as “Protech”), also carrying construction business.

III. Meghmallar, initially started a development project of a multi-storeyed residential building/apartment with different blocks and recreational facilities etc., over a plot of land measuring 13 bighas 4 lechas situated at By Lane No.2, Tarun Nagar, Guwahati and it was named as “Meghmallar City Center Residency, (hereinafter referred to as the Project Land).

IV. The Project started by Meghmallar went into difficulties due to financial crunches, prolonged litigation (which will separately be dealt with at the appropriate stage) raised by the people of the locality and finally, in the year 2018 permission for construction was granted to Meghmallar with 175 FAR, treating the Road abutting the project to be 8 meter as per the existing building bye-laws. However, due to the trouble faced by Meghmallar and due to its financial incapacity, Meghmallar entered into a settlement with Protech for certain considerations allowing Protech to continue with the project.

V. Subsequently, Protech applied for fresh permission and Protech was granted an FAR of 275 treating the road abutting the project to be 8.35 meters, which according to the Meghmallar is not permissible under law, rather the FAR should be 175, which was originally granted to Meghmallar and accordingly, the challenges are made as recorded hereinabove.

5. In the aforesaid backdrop, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel argues the following:

I. The permissions granted to Meghmallar and a report dtd.28.12.2013 submitted by GMDA authority before this Court in the proceeding of WP(C) No.7057, Mr. Choudhury, learned senior counsel contends that treating the road to be 8 meters in width, Meghmallar was granted permission w