Disposed

Prasant Barman v. the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Aug 2022I.A.(Civil)/2329/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge order directing de-sealing of an Assam Type dwelling house in 24 hours to restore access. Sealing of unauthorized septic tank and multi-storied construction remains in force pending the disposal of the applicant's appeal. Direction to apply same yardstick to the complainant.

What did the court decide?

De-sealing of premises to allow family entry within 24 hours; sealing of septic tank and unauthorized construction remains in force pending appeal.

Prasant Barman Vs the Guwahati Municipal… — Municipal and Town Planning | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010213262021

¶3

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

¶4

I.A.(Civil)/2329/2022

¶5

PRASANT BARMAN SON OF LATE ARJAN SINGH R/O HOUSE NO. 210 GPS ROAD PANJABARI P.S. SATGAON P.O. PAJABARI GUWAHATI PIN-781037 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND 3 ORS REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER PANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001. 2:THE BRANCH OFFICER ENFORCEMENT BRANCH GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ASSAM PANBAZAR GUWAHATI-781001. 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M)

¶7

Page No.# 2/4

¶8

DIST. ASSAM 4:PRABJOT SINGH ARORA SON OF LATE ARJAN SINGH R/O HOUSE NO. 210 GPS ROAD PANJABARI P.S. SATGAON P.O. PAJABARI GUWAHATI PIN-781037 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM -----------Advocate for : MR. R L YADAV Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND 3 ORS

¶9

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶10

ORDER

¶11

Date : --10.08.2022

¶12

Heard Mrs. K. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, GMC appearing for the opposite-party Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. N. Goswami, learned Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. R.J. Das, learned counsel representing Opposite Party No. 4/writ petitioner.

¶13

The applicant herein has alleged that the officials of GMC had arrived at his residential premises on 04.08.2022 and sealed his dwelling house thereby driving the applicant along with his family members including wife and children as well as old mother, out of the house. In view of the aforesaid action of the GMC authorities the applicant has been rendered homeless. Hence, this application praying for restoration of his possession in the house. According to the learned Standing Counsel GMC, the applicant had not only failed to comply with the notices issued to him but had also ill treated the officials when they went to his place.

¶14

It appears that the action initiated by the GMC authorities is pursuant to the notices

¶15

Page No.# 3/4

¶16

dated 29.07.2021 as well as 21.02.2022 wherein the direction was to remove the unauthorised construction of septic tank and permanent structure errected without obtaining NOC from the GMC. Such notices were apparently issued on the basis of complaint submitted by the opposite-party No. 4.

¶17

The applicant’s counsel submits that the construction of the complainant/oppositeparty No. 4 is also unauthorised inasmuch as he has also not obtained any NOC from the GMC. Notwithstanding the same the respondent authorities have acted in a pick and choose manner and initiated action only against the applicant although the Opposite Party No. 4 is equally liable to be proceeded against.

¶18

Mrs. Yadav further submits that the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 could not have sealed the “Assam Type” dwelling house of the applicant in view of the fact that no construction permission is required for building an Assam Type house.

¶19

Mr. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, GMC on the other hand submits that the action was initiated in view of the aforesaid notices as well as the order dated 27.04.2022 passed by this Court. Mr. Nayak also submit that the appeal preferred by the applicant is pending before the GMC and therefore, this matter be adjourned for 3 weeks.

¶20

Also heard submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel for the opposite-party No. 4/writ petitioner.

¶21

It appears that the complaint of the Opposite Party No. 4 against the applicant is with regard to construction of septic tank and multi-storied building near his boundary wall. The notice dated 29.07.2021 does not mention about any decision to seal/ demolish the Assam Type House of the applicant.

¶22

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this I.A. is being disposed of by providing the opposite-party No. 1 and 2 shall allow the applicant to enter into his “Assam Type” dwelling house along with family members, by de-sealing the aforesaid premises within 24 hours. However, the sealing of the septic tank and other construction as indicated in the notices dated 29.07.2021 and 21.02.2022 shall remain in force until such time, the appeal preferred by the applicant is disposed of by the opposite-party No.1. While hearing the appeal of the applicant, the opposite party No.1 will also examine as to whether, the applicant has

¶23

Page No.# 4/4

¶24

the necessary permission for construction of multi-storied building and if so, whether such construction has been carried in term of such permission. Similar yardstick shall also be applied in case of the complainant/appellant No. 4 before arriving at a decision in the matter.

¶25

The IA stands disposed of.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Prasant Barman v. the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasant Barman v. the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and 3 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

Mrs. Jitumoni Boro Vs the State of Assam and 13 Ors.

Mrs. Jitumoni Boro Vs the State of Assam and 13 Ors.

Phanidhar Das Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

M/S North East Organised Floritech Private Limited and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

M/S North East Organised Floritech Private Limited and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Rajib Boruah Vs Jayant Narlikar