Disposed

Piplu Paul v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 Jun 2022WP(C)/291/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Challenge to a demolition notice issued by the Executive Officer due to a boundary dispute. The Court, noting disputed facts, directed the parties to appear before the Chairman of the Sonari Municipal Board for amicable resolution pending verification before any demolition. The petition was disposed of with an interim stay on demolition.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 5 and 6 to appear before respondent 3 within 15 days; demolition stayed until verification; parties to cooperate for amicable resolution.

Piplu Paul Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010005042022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/291/2022

¶5

PIPLU PAUL

¶6

S/O LT. HIRENDRA KUMAR PAUL, R/O SONARI TOWN, WARD NO. 7, P.O. AND P.S SONARI, DIST. CHARAIDEO, ASSAM, PIN-785690

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006, ASSAM

¶10

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHARAIDEO SONARI P.O. SONARI PIN-782445 ASSAM

¶11

3:THE CHAIRMAN SONARI MUNICIPAL BOARD SONARI P.O. SONARI DIST. SONARI PIN-785690 ASSAM

¶12

4:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SONARI MUNICIPAL BOARD SONARI P.O. SONARI DIST. SONARI PIN-785690 ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

5:APU PAUL S/O LT. AMARENDRA KUMAR PAUL R/O SONARI TOWN WARD NO. 7 P.O. AND P.S. SONARI DIST. CHARAIDEO ASSAM PIN-785690

¶15

6:AMAL PAUL S/O LT. AMARENDRA KUMAR PAUL R/O SONARI TOWN WARD NO. 7 P.O. AND P.S. SONARI DIST. CHARAIDEO ASSAM PIN-78569

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F KHAN

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶18

BEFORE

¶19

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶20

13.06.2022

¶21

Heard Mr. A. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Dev, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 4. Ms. S. Dasgupta, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent Nos.5 and 6. None has appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶22

In this writ petition, the notice dated 18.11.2021 issued by the respondent No.4 asking the petitioner to demolish his construction has been put under challenge.

¶23

Mr. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a boundary dispute between the petitioner and his neighbour, i.e. the respondent Nos.5 and 6 which can be resolved amicably. Notwithstanding the same and despite the fact that the petitioner is carrying out his part of construction by

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

obtaining bank loan and after complying with all the requirements of the building bye-laws, the impugned notice has been issued only to harass the writ petitioner. According to Mr. Tewari, the construction raised by his client, which is the subject matter of the impugned notice, was prior in point of time as compared to the construction work undertaken by the respondent Nos.5 and 6. However, the authorities did not consider the said aspect of the matter before issuing the impugned notice.

¶26

Ms. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6, on the other hand, submits that her clients have been needlessly dragged into this controversy inasmuch as, they have nothing to do with the exercise undertaken by the respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶27

Mr. Dev, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that the dispute between the parties can be resolved amicably if they appear before the Chairman of the Municipal Board with their respective grievances. He submits that the petitioner should be directed to avail alternative remedy.

¶28

After taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that since there are disputed questions of facts projected at the Bar, the proper course of action in this case would be to direct the parties to appear before the respondent No.3 and place their respective grievance along with supporting materials so as to enable the competent authority to take appropriate decision in the matter.

¶29

I, therefore, dispose of this writ petition by directing the writ petitioner as well as the respondent Nos.5 and 6 to appear before the respondent No.3, i.e. Chairman of Sonari Municipal Board within 15 (fifteen) days from today and produce a certified copy of this order. Thereafter, both the parties would abide

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

by any further notice/order issued by the respondent No.3 in the matter. Upon proper verification of the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent No.3 may pass appropriate order in the matter.

¶32

It is expected that both parties would render necessary cooperation to the Sonari Municipal Authorities so as to resolve the dispute amicably. Until such time any effective order is passed by the respondent No.3 on verification of the facts and circumstances of both the constructions, no demolition would be carried out in respect of the petitioner’s building.

¶33

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Comparing Assistant

Piplu Paul v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Piplu Paul 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

The State of Assam and 3 Ors. Vs Md. Abdul Jalil and 62 Ors.

Ajit Kumar Doley Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Sri Ram Chandra Dutta and 13 Ors. Vs Smti Jyotshna Das and 7 Ors.

On the Death of Pradip Das His Legal Heris Smti Ilu Das and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

On the Death of Sayed Moinuddin Ahmed His Legal Heirs Syed Abu Sayeed and Anr. Vs the Govt. of Assam

Society for Human Advancement and Promotion of Employment(Shape) Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.