Disposed¶36

Pranati Khaund v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Jan 2025WP(C)/146/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Pranati Khaund v. State of Assam & Ors, WP(C)/146/2025, Gauhati High Court, decided 10.01.2025 by Soumitra Saikia, J. Keywords: Guwahati Municipal Corporation; demolition notice dated 30.11.2024; Section 337(3) Guwahati Municipal Act 1971; unauthorised construction/temporary fencing; opportunity of hearing to flat owner; representation within 10 days; abeyance of demolition; disposal at motion stage without notice; proforma respondent No. 5 Dr. Amal Kumar Borpujari, M/s A.B Construction and Housing.

What did the court decide?

Action by the GMC in view of the order dated 30.11.2024 kept in abeyance until the hearing is conducted and a subsequent order under Section 337(3) is passed; petitioner afforded the opportunity to be heard by the Commissioner, GMC, and to file a representation with documents within 10 days. ¶36

Pranati Khaund Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, as owner of apartments in the building covered by the GMC demolition notice dated 30.11.2024, was entitled to an opportunity of being heard before the GMC authorities proceeded under Section 337(3) of the Guwahati Municipal Act, 1971.

¶31

Court's answer

The court directed that the petitioner appear before the Commissioner, GMC, place her objections along with all necessary documents in support of her claim, and that upon a proper hearing the authorities pass appropriate orders in the matter.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Until the hearing is conducted and a subsequent order as contemplated under Section 337(3) is passed by the GMC authorities, the action in view of the order dated 30.11.2024 is to be kept in abeyance.

¶34

Key takeaways

The petitioner was directed to appear before the GMC authorities and file an appropriate representation within 10 days.ratio¶34
The writ petition stands closed in terms of the above directions at the motion stage, without issuing notice to the respondents.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, WP(C)/146/2025, Soumitra Saikia, J., 10.01.2025: Petitioner, owner of two apartments, was aggrieved by a demolition notice dated 30.11.2024 issued by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation under Section 337(3), Guwahati Municipal Act, 1971, to proforma respondent No. 5 (Dr. Amal Kumar Borpujari, builder) for removal of a temporary fencing constructed by the petitioner's late husband; her representation seeking service of notice on her as flat owner went unanswered. The court directed the petitioner to appear before the Commissioner, GMC with objections and supporting documents and file a representation within 10 days, ordered that action in view of the notice stand in abeyance till the hearing and a subsequent order under Section 337(3), and closed the writ petition at the motion stage without issuing notice.

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010006442025

undefined

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/146/2025

¶6

PRANATI KHAUND

¶7

W/O LATE BHUPEN CHANDRA KHAUND, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 21, LAKHIMI NAGAR PATH, HATIGAON, GUWAHATI ASSAM 781006

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

¶10

REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, GUWAHATI DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006

¶11

2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶12

TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM GUWAHATI DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006

¶13

3:GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER GANESH MANDIR DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006

¶14

4:THE COMMISSIONER

¶15

GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GANESH MANDIR DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006

¶16

5:DR. AMAL KUMAR BORPUJARI

¶17

PROPRIETOR OF M/S A.B CONSTRUCTION AND HOUSING AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶18

Page No.# 2/4

¶19

SON OF LATE DURGESWAWR BORPUJARI RESIDENT OF BISHNUJYOTI PATH HATIGAON GUWAHATI ASSAM 78100

¶20

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R B PHOOKAN, MR K J HAZARIKA,MS M KAKOTY,R SARMAH

¶21

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GMC, SC, GDD

¶22

BEFORE

¶23

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Date : 10.01.2025

¶26

Heard Mr. R.B. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Borah, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC).

¶27

The petitioner before this court is aggrieved by the demolition notice dated 30.11.2024 issued to proforma respondent No.5 who is the builder of the property including the apartment in which the petitioner owns 2 (two) no. of apartments.

¶28

The temporary fencing was made by the late husband of the petitioner separating the petitioner’s property with that of the land owner’s/builder’s portion. Subsequently, the petitioner came to be informed by the impugned notice dated 30.11.2024 issued by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) authorities, notice under Section 337 (3) of the Guwahati Municipal Act (GMC) Act, 1971 was issued to the proforma respondent No. 5 to remove these unauthorized constructions as was not a part of the original approved land. On being made aware, it is noticed that the petitioner’s counsel issued a

¶29

Page No.# 3/4

¶30

representation on behalf of the petitioner requesting for service of notice on the petitioner as well being the owner of the said flats and as the fencing was stated to have been constructed by the late husband of the petitioner. However, inspite of the representation being filed, there was no response from the GMC authorities and to the best of the knowledge of the petitioner, it is submitted that the GMC authorities are proceeding for demolition of the fencing in terms of the notice dated 30.11.2024.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the GMC authorities ought not to have proceeded with the notice without affording an opportunity of hearing to the owner of the flat/apartments and more particularly when the temporary fencing was constructed by her late husband with full knowledge of persons concerned. Under such circumstances the present writ petition has been filed and praying for an adequate interim orders.

¶32

Mr. S. Borah, learned Standing Counsel appearing for GMC fairly submits that the petitioner can also been given an opportunity of being heard to represent in her case.

¶33

In view of such submissions made by the counsel at the bar, let the petitioner appears before the Commissioner, GMC and place her objections along with all necessary documents in support of her claim and upon a proper hearing, the authorities will thereafter pass appropriate orders in this matter.

¶34

Till such time the hearing is conducted and subsequent order as contemplated under Section 337 (3) is passed by the GMC authorities in view of the order dated 30.11.2024 shall kept in abeyance. The petitioner will appear before the GMC authorities and file appropriate representation within 10 days from today.

¶35

Page No.# 4/4

¶36

The writ petition is stands closed in terms of the above direction at the motion stage without issuing notice.

¶37

JUDGE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Pranati Khaund v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pranati Khaund v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Neha Builders Vs Jonali Kalita

Sufian Akhter and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Shri Dibyajit Bora Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Md. Hajijur Rahman and 81 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Anwarul Haque Laskar Vs Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui

Intaz Ali Vs the State of Assam