Gauhati High Court Upholds Building Permits: Road Width Key in FAR Dispute

The Gauhati High Court recently delivered a judgment in the case of Meghmallar Estates and Services Private Limited v. State of Assam and Ors (WP(C)/753/2023), resolving a dispute centered on building permits and the calculation of Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The court's decision hinged on the precise determination of road width, a crucial factor in determining permissible FAR under applicable building bylaws.

Case Overview

The case involved a long-standing conflict between Meghmallar Estates and Services Private Limited (Meghmallar), a developer, and M/S Protech Housing, another construction firm. Meghmallar initially secured building permits with a FAR of 175, but financial difficulties led to a settlement with Protech , who then applied for and received permits with a higher FAR of 275. Meghmallar challenged these permits, arguing that the road width used to calculate the FAR for Protech 's project was incorrectly measured, leading to an illegal increase in the permitted FAR. The dispute also involved allegations of undue influence by a government minister (Respondent No. 6), whose sons were partners in Protech .

Contending Arguments

Meghmallar's primary argument centered on the alleged miscalculation of the road width. They asserted that the road width remained at 8 meters, as initially considered when permits were granted to Meghmallar, and thus, the higher FAR granted to Protech was unlawful. They further alleged that the expedited approval process and the minister's relationship to Protech 's partners demonstrated a colourable exercise of power and bias.

The respondents, including the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) and the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC), countered that the permits were issued in accordance with amended building bylaws (Byelaw 2020) which allowed a higher FAR based on a road width exceeding 8 meters. They argued that the road width was accurately measured and that the allegations of undue influence were unfounded. Protech contended that the dispute was a private matter between Meghmallar and Protech , and that Meghmallar had available alternative remedies.

The Court's Reasoning

Justice Arun Dev Choudhury 's judgment meticulously examined the history of the project, including previous litigation and the different building bylaws in effect at various stages. The court acknowledged the complexities arising from varying road width measurements and the different bylaws in use. Ultimately the court held that the GMDA and GMC had followed the procedures laid down under the applicable bylaws, Byelaw 2020 at the time of application, in granting permission and determining the road width. The court's careful analysis of the evidence demonstrated that the road width calculations, though varied at different points, consistently exceeded the 8-meter threshold required for a higher FAR under Byelaw 2020.

Crucially, the court dismissed the allegations of bias and undue influence, finding no evidence to support the claim that the minister improperly influenced the permit approval process. While acknowledging the minister’s prior position as Chairman of the GMDA, the court found that he was not directly involved in the decision-making process relating to Protech 's permits. The court rejected the argument of alternative remedies as there was already a substantial amount of evidence before the court.

Decision and Implications

The Gauhati High Court dismissed Meghmallar's writ petition, upholding the legality of the building permits issued to Protech . The decision emphasizes the importance of accurate road width measurements in FAR calculations and underscores the court's reluctance to interfere with administrative decisions unless clear illegality or procedural impropriety is demonstrated. This ruling provides clarity on the interpretation and application of building bylaws in similar disputes.

Key Excerpts from Judgment:

• "The permissions are to be granted on the basis of existing road width abutting the plot... This court cannot uphold the contention of Meghmallar that...the road width cannot be more than 8 meters, more particularly, when there are materials on record showing that...the road was once again measured...and that Meghmallar itself has been claiming that road width is more than 8 meters."
• "From the record, this court has not found any material to create any reasonable suspicion of bias or real likelihood of bias..."