Disposed

Aleman Nessa and 6 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Sept 2019WP(C)/343/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a construction by respondent no. 6 alleging violation of Building By-laws. The Gauhati High Court disposed of the petition to avoid stalemate, directing the Municipal Board to verify compliance within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent no. 3 to verify construction compliance with Building By-laws and No Objection within four weeks.

Aleman Nessa and 6 Ors. Vs the State of Assam… — Municipal and Town Planning | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010136392019

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case : WP(C) 343/2019 1:ALEMAN NESSA AND 6 ORS. W/O. LT. MOJIBUR RAHMAN R/O. VILL- BANGAIGAON TOWN WARD NO. 10 P.O.- BANGAIGAON P.S.- BANGAIGAON AND DIST- BANGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78338.

¶5

2: AYNUDDIN RAHMAN S/O- LT. MOJIBUR RAHMAN R/O. VILL- BANGAIGAON TOWN WARD NO. 10 P.O.- BANGAIGAON P.S.- BANGAIGAON AND DIST- BANGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78338. 3: AHER ALI S/O- LT. MOJIBUR RAHMAN R/O. VILL- BANGAIGAON TOWN WARD NO. 10 P.O.- BANGAIGAON P.S.- BANGAIGAON AND DIST- BANGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78338.

¶6

4: SIRAJUL HOQUE S/O.- LT. MOJIBUR RAHMAN R/O. VILL- BANGAIGAON TOWN WARD NO. 10 P.O.- BANGAIGAON

¶7

Page No.# 2/4

¶8

P.S.- BANGAIGAON AND DIST- BANGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78338. 5: SHAHIDUR RAHMAN S/O.- LT. MOJIBUR RAHMAN R/O. VILL- BANGAIGAON TOWN WARD NO. 10 P.O.- BANGAIGAON P.S.- BANGAIGAON AND DIST- BANGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78338. 6: MOFIDUL RAHMAN S/O.- LT. MOJIBUR RAHMAN R/O. VILL- BANGAIGAON TOWN WARD NO. 10 P.O.- BANGAIGAON P.S.- BANGAIGAON AND DIST- BANGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78338. 7: SADDAM HUSSAIN S/O.- LT. MOJIBUR RAHMAN R/O. VILL- BANGAIGAON TOWN WARD NO. 10 P.O.- BANGAIGAON P.S.- BANGAIGAON AND DIST- BANGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78338. VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BONGAIGAON DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON PIN- 78338. 3:BONGAIGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78338.

¶9

Page No.# 3/4

¶10

4:THE CHAIRMAN BONGAIGAON MUNICIPAL BOARD P.O. P.S. AND DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78338 5:DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BONGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78338.

¶11

6:SOMEJ UDDIN AHMED S/O- LATE AHMED ALI VILL- BANGAIGAON TOWN WARD NO. 10 P.O. P.S. AND DIST- BANGAIGAON ASSAM PIN- 78338.

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M H AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : GA ASSAM

¶13

BEFORE

¶14

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 09-09-2019

¶17

Heard Mr. M. H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. M.D. Borah, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5 and Mr. A.C. Sarma, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no. 6. The remaining respondents have not entered appearance in this case.

¶18

The petitioner and the respondent no. 6 share a common boundary. Aggrieved by the construction

¶19

raised by the respondent no. 6 on the southern side of the petitioners’ land, the instant writ petition has

¶20

been filed alleging that the constructions are being raised in violation of the Building By-laws and the Rules

¶21

but the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Bongaigaon Municipal Board has failed to take any action in the matter despite the receipt of complaints from the petitioner.

¶22

Page No.# 4/4

¶23

Mr. Sarma, learned senior counsel for the respondent no. 6 submits that although there were some initial violation of the By-laws and the Rules, yet, upon receipt of notice from the authorities, such violations in the construction have been removed by the petitioner and as such, there is no further violation in the construction undertaken by the respondent no. 6 as on date.

¶24

Mr. Ahmed submits that his clients would have no grievance if the respondent no. 6 carries out the construction of the building by following the Building By-laws and the Rules applicable therein.

¶25

Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the view that no practical purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending before this Court. As such, I dispose of the writ petition by directing the respondent no. 3 to verify the construction being carried out by the respondent no. 6 and ascertain whether such construction is being carried out in compliance with the No Objection as well as the Building By-laws and the Rules.

¶26

If it is found that there is no violation of the Building By-laws and Rules then the respondent no. 3 shall issue a fresh order permitting the respondent no. 6 to go ahead with the construction.

¶27

In the event any deviation is found, which is not of compoundable nature, the respondent no. 3 shall take appropriate action in the matter, as may be permissible under the law.

¶28

The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out and completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶29

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶30

Sukhamay

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Aleman Nessa and 6 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aleman Nessa and 6 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sukleswar Bordoloi Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dibrugarh Fishery Co-Operative Society Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

M/S. Saikhowa Sadiya Min Samabai Samiti Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Patit Barman Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

The Deputy Commissioner Vs Pabitra Bora and 3 Ors.

Somij Uddin Ahmed Vs Aleman Nessa and 11 Ors.