Disposed

Sahed Ahmed Laskar v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC15 Jun 2022WP(C)/3910/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, an adjacent landowner, challenged unauthorized construction and alleged inaction by authorities. The single-judge bench disposed of the writ petition at the motion hearing, directing the Department of Urban Development to consider the petitioner's representation and pass a speaking order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner's representation and pass a speaking order within four weeks.

Sahed Ahmed Laskar Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Land Acquisition | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010112312022

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/3910/2022

¶5

SAHED AHMED LASKAR S/O- LATE AZIM UDDIN LASKAR, R/O- VILL AND P.O- UTTAR KRISHNAPUR PART I, DIST- CACHAR, ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

¶8

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR, GUWAHATI781007

¶9

2:THE SILCHAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN SILCHAR P.O- SILCHAR DIST- CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001

¶10

3:THE DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ASSAM SILCHAR CACHAR

¶11

4:ASHRAF HUSSAIN LASKAR S/O- LATE HAZI AHMED HUSSAIN LASKAR

¶12

R/O- VILL- UTTAR KRISHNAPUR PART-I SONAI ROAD

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

DIST- CACHAR ASSA

¶15

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J LASKAR

¶16

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 15/06/2022

¶20

Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.

¶21

Goswami, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.

¶22

As per the case projected in the writ petition, the petitioner is residing in a plot of land which is situated adjacent to the land owned by the respondent no. 4. According to the petitioner, the respondent no. 4 is carrying out construction over the said plot of land in violation of the Building Byelaws and without keeping requisite set back, as a result of which, the right and interest of the petitioner has been adversely affected.

¶23

Although the petitioner had submitted his representation dated 07/02/2022 addressed to the respondent no.2 ventilating his grievance in the matter, yet, no action has been taken in the matter till today. Mr. Laskar submits that notwithstanding the fact that on 16/11/2021, the respondent no. 2 had issued an order directing the respondent no. 4 to demolish the construction, the respondent no. 4 went ahead with the construction and has practically completed the same. However, the authorities have failed to take any action in the matter.

¶24

Mr. Goswami, learned Government Advocate, Assam, submits that if the petitioner’s

¶25

representation is still pending, he would have no objection if a direction is issued by this Court to the authorities to dispose of the representations by a speaking order.

¶26

Page No.# 3/3

¶27

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner, I dispose of the writ petition at the stage of motion hearing, with a direction upon the respondent no. 2 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner (Annexure-D) and dispose of the same with a speaking order, as expeditiously as possible but not later than four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶28

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

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

sukhamay

¶31

Comparing Assistant

Sahed Ahmed Laskar v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahed Ahmed Laskar v. the State of Assam and Anr.

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

M/S T.K. Engineering Consortium Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Sri Dimbeswar Das and 2 Ors. Vs Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Limited and 3 Ors.

M/S T K Engineering Consortium Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Highways and Infrastructure Development Corp Ltd. and 4 Ors.

Nandeswar Handique Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Ershad Ibhrahim Zaman Vs Tankeswar Das and 2 Ors.

Munindra Kumar Dev Sarma and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.