Dismissed¶54

Smti Anita Das v. the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC13 Oct 2025WP(C)/4081/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

unauthorized construction; demolition order; regularization denied; GMDA Act 1985 Sections 87 and 88 show-cause notice; Article 226 Constitution of India; holding number 12072830; tax assessment; Khazana; Guwahati Municipal Corporation; Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority; CEO demolition order 13.07.2023; land sale permission cancelled by letter dated 02.08.2025; IA(Civil) No. 2769 of 2025; Kula Prasad Gogoi 2008 (1) GLT 98 distinguished; Kaniz Ahmed 2025 INSC 610 relied on; WP(C)/4081/2023 dismissed; Gauhati High Court; Rajesh Mazumdar; 14.10.2025.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed and no cost(s) awarded (with the observation that the petitioner may seek reasonable time from the authorities). ¶54

Smti Anita Das Vs the Guwahati Metropolitan… — Writ and Judicial Review | Gauhati HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; writ petition dismissed and no cost(s) awarded (with the observation that the petitioner may seek reasonable time from the authorities).

¶54

Issue for consideration

Whether the demolition order dated 13.07.2023 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, GMDA (directing demolition of the RCC ground plus two floors building and RCC toilet) should be set aside and coercive action restrained pending regularization. +2 more

¶33

Court's answer

The impugned decision of the respondents directing the petitioner to demolish the unauthorized construction does not require any interference.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

Recorded as undisputed that the petitioner is yet to acquire legal and lawful possession of the plot of land in issue, and that the building constructed on it was brought into existence without even applying for permission to construct; the competent authority had considered and rejected the petitioner's prayers.

¶51

Key takeaways

A litigant cannot be heard to say that although an act is illegal, it may be regularized as it has already been committed; while irregularities may be regularized, illegality cannot be so done. Accordingly, the plea that the construction adhering to the norms (with holding number and tax assessment) deserves regularization was rejected.ratio¶50
Reliance on Kula Prasad Gogoi (2008 (1) GLT 98) was rejected: in that case there was a deviation from the approved building plan (an additional floor beyond the permission given), whereas in the present case the entire building is without permission.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court, Single Judge (Rajesh Mazumdar, J.), judgment dated 14.10.2025 in WP(C)/4081/2023 (Smti Anita Das v. The Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors.): dismissed. The petitioner, who had bought 17 lechas of patta land at Village Fatasil, Beltola Mouza, from a non-owner and in 2017 built an RCC ground+2 storey building and RCC toilet without any permission, was served a show-cause notice dated 12.06.2023 under Sections 87 and 88 of the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1985, following which the Chief Executive Officer, GMDA ordered demolition on 13.07.2023. Her pleas — that the holding number (12072830) and tax assessment by GMC, payment of Khazana and adherence to norms warranted regularization, and (via IA(Civil) No. 2769 of 2025) that GMDA's letter dated 02.08.2025 cancelling the land-sale permission granted to the actual owner (Sri Dipak Kumar Baruah) for transfer to her husband should be set aside — failed. Holding that irregularities may be regularized but illegality cannot, and distinguishing Kula Prasad Gogoi, 2008 (1) GLT 98 (a deviation-from-approved-plan case) because here the entire building was without permission, the Court, endorsing the strict approach of the Supreme Court in Kaniz Ahmed, 2025 INSC 610, left the demolition decision undisturbed and dismissed the petition without costs, observing that the petitioner, for whom the building is the sole residence, may seek reasonable time from the authorities, to be considered judiciously.

Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010111272025

2025:GAU-AS:13718

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4081/2023

¶6

SMTI ANITA DAS W/O SRI KULDIP DAS R/O HOUSE NO. 21 NEBEN BORA PATH NEAR MANASHA MANDIR P.O. AND P.S.- GARCHUK GUWAHATI PIN-781035 ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER STATEFED BUILDING GMC HOSPITAL ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005

¶9

2:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY STATEFED BUILDING GMC HOSPITAL ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005

¶10

3:THE CHAIRMAN GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THIRD FLOOR STATEFED BUILDING GMC HOSPITAL ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-781005

¶11

Page No.# 2/10

¶12

4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (M)

¶13

LICHUBAGAN HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036

¶14

5:THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER

¶15

GUWAHATI MUNICIPALCORPORATION GUWAHATI-781001.

¶16

6:THE ASSOCIATE PLANNER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶17

GUWAHATI-781001.

¶18

-----------Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY Advocate for : SC

¶19

G M D A appearing for THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND 3 ORS

¶20

BEFORE

¶21

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

¶22

Advocate for the petitioner(s) : Mr D J Das

¶23

Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr P Nayak, Addl. A G.

¶24

Date of Judgment : 14.10.2025

¶25

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

¶26

(Rajesh Mazumdar, J.)

¶27

Heard Mr D J Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. The

¶28

Page No.# 3/10

¶29

pleadings in this case have been completed with the respondents having filed their affidavit in opposition and the petitioner having filed his reply. With the consent of the parties, although the matter has been listed under Order (Stay Vacating), the entire matter has been taken up for disposal at this stage.

¶30

The case projected by the writ petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased a plot of land measuring 17 lechas under dag no. 670 (old)/(810) (New) situated at VillageFatasil under Beltola Mouza in the district of Kamrup (Metro), from one Sri Prabhat Boro, resident of Kotabari, Gorchuk, Guwahati by way of an agreement on a stamp paper. The petitioner, while buying the aforesaid plot of land did not know that the said plot of land is a patta land and that another Dipak Baruah is the original owner of the said plot of land. The petitioner further stated that due to an urgency on the part of the petitioner and due to absence of residential premises, the petitioner, along with her husband, had constructed an RCC Ground + 2 floor building on the aforesaid lot of land in the year 2017. After completion of the construction the petitioner applied for obtaining the “Holding number” and also for assessment for the purposes of taxes etc. in the office of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation, Guwahati. Pursuant to such assessment, the Guwahati Municipal Corporation allotted holding number 12072830 and Assessment ID no. 06-80-12072830 against the building standing on the said plot of land.

¶31

It is the further case of the petitioner that she was served with a show-case notice dated 12th of June 2023, issued under the provisions of Sections 87 and 88 of the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1985. The notice was issued under the hand and seal of the Chief Executive Officer, Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had constructed the RCC ground plus two floor building and RCC toilet block over the said plot of land without any valid permission from the competent authority. The petitioner had submitted her reply to the

¶32

Page No.# 4/10

¶33

show cause notice on 03.07.2023, where she had explained the entire circumstances under which she acquired the same plot of land. The Chief Executive Officer, GMDA, thereafter, issued the impugned order dated 13th of July 2023, upon the petitioner, directing the petitioner to demolish the RCC ground plus two floors building and the RCC toilet constructed at House No. GMC/21, Naban Borough Port, near Manasa Mandir, Gorchuk. On 20-7-2023, the petitioner filed a representation praying for opportunity and reasonable time to take necessary steps to obtain the permission and arrange to regularize the construction of the RCC Ground Plus Two floors building. The Petitioner alleges that the representation had not been disposed of and, therefore, she has approached this court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to obtain an appropriate relief to the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside of the order dated 13.7.2023 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority and for directing the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in terms of the order dated 13.7.2023, till the petitioner obtains the required permission or approval for regularizing her building.

¶34

During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner had filed an additional affidavit on 16th of August 2023, to bring on record the copy of a letter dated 26.7.2023 issued by the Associate Planner of Guwahati Municipal Corporation requiring the petitioner to provide copies of No Objection certificate, approved plan and occupancy certificate of the building in question.

¶35

While issuing notice on 21.07.2023, this Court had directed that no coercive steps shall be taken in respect of the construction of the petitioner, considering the fact that the petitioner had submitted a representation seeking some additional time pursuant to the orders passed on 13.7.2025. The Chief Executive Officer, GMDA was given the liberty to pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner on

¶36

Page No.# 5/10

¶37

20.7.2023.

¶38

The respondents in the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority have filed their affidavit-in- opposition, where a very specific stand has been taken that the G-plus two storied building constructed by the petitioner on the plot of land was wholly unauthorized, without any valid permission from any competent authority. The respondents submitted that the notice dated 22.06.2023 and the order dated 13.7.2023 are not liable to be interfered with by this Court as the same are lawful. The affidavit further states that the representation filed by the petitioner to the Chairman, GMDA on 20.7.2023 was found to be not acceptable and had been disposed of by order dated 31.10.2023. The respondents assert that the petitioner had constructed G + 2 floors building without obtaining any valid permission for such construction as required under the law, and therefore, no part of the building can be regularized since it is a wholly unauthorised and illegal construction.

¶39

In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner asserted since the petitioner had no other place to live, the RCC building had been constructed on the plot of land over which she had acquired possessory right. The fact that the Guwahati Municipality Corporation had assessed her building and had issued a holding number was also stressed to emphasize that the respondents could have allowed regularization of the construction rather than seek demolition of the same. The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that, when they rejected the representation of the petitioner, the fact that the building adheres to the norms of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation and Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority and the fact that the petitioner had been paying Khazana against the said plot of land and was also paying the requisite taxes against the RCC building were ignored by the respondent authorities. It is relevant to note here that during pendency of this petition, the actual owner of the plot of land namely, Sri Dipak Kumar Baruah had initiated a process to sell the plot of land

¶40

Page No.# 6/10

¶41

in favour of the husband of the petitioner and in furtherance of such intention, Sri Dipak Kumar Baruah had applied for sale permission in favour of the husband of petitioner. An “application acknowledgement” was issued in favour of Sri Dipak Kumar Baruah on 25.3.2025, stating that application for composite land sale transfer had been submitted successfully before the Land and Revenue Department. The District Commissioner, Kamrup Mohanagar, issued the NOC for sale of the concerned land on 05.06.2025. The Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority had also issued a certificate on 23.07.2025 in favour of Sri Dipak Kumar Baruah expressing their no objection to the transfer of the plot of land measuring 15 lecha to the husband of the applicant. When the husband of the petitioner had thereafter approached the office of the Sub Registrar Kamrup(Metro) for execution of the sale of the plot of land in question, the SubRegistrar had refused to register the execution of the sale of the plot of land in question on the ground that the Chief Executive Officer GMDA had issued a letter dated 02.08.2025, to the District Commissioner, stating that the No-Objection Certificate pertaining to the sale proposed by Mr Dipak Kumar Baruah to Sri Kuldeep Das was issued on the basis of the NOC provided by the office of the then Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro). However, the GMDA had overlooked that the said property comprised of an RCC building which was unauthorized and that there was a pending litigation involving the structure. It was further stated that the application for land sale permission was filed on behalf of Mr Dipak Kumar Baruah and, therefore, the GMDA authorities had failed to trace the associated complications regarding the unauthorized construction etc.. It was thus, communicated that, to maintain procedural integrity and regulatory compliance, the land sale permission granted earlier by GMDA vide GMDA/LSP/1333/23062025 dated Wed, July 23, 2025, stood cancelled until further orders. The writ petitioner had, thereafter, filed IA(Civil) No. 2769 of 2025, praying for directions to the respondents to allow execution of the sale of the plot in question, by setting aside the impugned letter dated 02.08.2025.

¶42

Page No.# 7/10

¶43

Heard Mr D J Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr P Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.

¶44

Mr Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the land in issue was purchased by the petitioner under a misconception of ownership and that on coming to know of the same, immediate steps were taken to effectuate proper, legal and lawful transfer of ownership of the premises. The actual owner of the land was also ready to sell the plot of land to the petitioner and/or her husband and for that purpose, he had also initiated appropriate steps by applying for the sale permission. The learned counsel had thereafter submitted that the since the land in issue was bought for the purpose of residence, the petitioner had constructed the house. The learned counsel further submits that the entire structure is within the norms laid down and there can be no reason for the respondents to refuse to regularise the building, more so when the said building has been allotted holding number and has also been assessed for the purpose of the taxes etc. The learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent in the GMDA ought not to have objected for the proposed sale of the plot of land in favour of the petitioner only on the ground that a litigation was pending, since such litigations was not on the issue of sale –purchase of the land but was regarding the directions for demolition of the building standing thereon. The learned counsel has further submitted that unless the petitioner is allowed to acquire legal possession of the said plot of land by way of purchase from the actual owner, she will not be able to pursue her cause for regularisation of the building constructed thereon. He has submitted that it would be in the interests of justice to allow the petitioner to acquire the plot of land from its original owner so that appropriate steps can be initiated for regularisation of the construction made thereon. He prays that the relief sought for in the writ petition and the interlocutory applications if granted would serve the purposes of justice and therefore deserve to be allowed. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment and order dated 23rd of November, 2003 passed in Kula Prasad Gogoi vs. State of Assam and others ,

¶45

Page No.# 8/10

¶46

reported in 2008 (1) GLT 98 , to stress that this Hon’ble Court had held that when the petitioner had been paying taxes for the unauthorized construction and when the construction was in the knowledge of the authorities, there could be no reason to declare the building to be illegal rendering the same liable for demolition only because there was no approved plan and necessary permission at the time of construction. He has submitted that in the said case, it was ordered that the deviated part of the petitioner’s building was only liable to be demolished, instead of the whole building. In the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that there is no deviation from the norms laid down by the authorities for construction of the building and, therefore, the order requiring demolition of the building deserves interference of this Court.

¶47

Mr. P Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General has resisted the prayers made in the writ petition and in the connected interlocutory applications. The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is admittedly not the owner of the aforesaid plot of land since he has not yet acquired the same from the admitted actual owner. The learned counsel has submitted that the representation made to the Chairman of the GMDA, has been rejected way back on 31.10.2023. The learned counsel has further submitted that it is an admitted position that the entire building has been constructed without even applying for permission to construct the building and, therefore, there is no question of there being an approved plan for the building on the basis of which deviations in the construction can be assessed. He submits that this is not a situation where there is any deviation from the permission granted, but it is a case where a wholly unauthorized construction has been created by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the judgment and order dated 30th of April, 2025, passed by the Apex Court in the matter of Kaniz Ahmed –Vs- Sabuddin & Others ; reported in 2025 INSC 610 , to stress that a person who has no regard for the law cannot be permitted to pray for regularization, after putting up unauthorized construction of two floors. He has submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that a strict approach must be

¶48

Page No.# 9/10

¶49

adopted while dealing with cases of illegal construction and judicial interference facilitating regularization of buildings erected without requisite permission from the competent authority is not the call of the day. He has submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court had refused the prayer made in the aforesaid case for being permitted even one chance to pray for regularization of the unauthorized construction and he has further submitted that the present case deserves to meet the same fate.

¶50

The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered by this Court. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner is yet to acquire legal and lawful possession of the plot of land in issue, the building constructed on the said plot of land was brought into existence without even applying for permission to construct the building and the prayers made by the petitioner have been rejected by the competent authority after due consideration of the grounds raised by the petitioner. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the construction made by the petitioner deserves to be regularized in the event the same adheres to the norms laid down by the respondent authorities, cannot be accepted by this Court for the simple reason that a litigant cannot be heard to say that although an act is illegal, it may be regularized as it has already been committed. Such proposition that illegal acts can be regularized, if accepted, may lead to preposterous consequences. The judgment and order passed by the Apex Court in Kaniz Ahmed (supra) has dealt with this issue and come to a specific observation that judicial discretion would be guided by expediency and justice is to be rendered in accordance with law. It is a settled position in law that while irregularities may be regularized, illegality cannot be so done. The admitted position by the writ petitioner being that the building was constructed without even applying for permission, this Court has to reject the reliance placed on behalf of the petitioner on the judgment and order passed in Kula Prasad Gogoi (supra) . In the said case, there was a deviation from the approved building plan, where an additional floor has been constructed beyond the permission given, but in the present case, the entire

¶51

Page No.# 10/10

¶52

building is without permission.

¶53

The end result of the foregoing discussions is that the prayers of the petitioner cannot be acceded to by this Court and the impugned decision of the respondents to direct the petitioner to demolish the unauthorized construction does not require any interference. It is, however, observed that the petitioner has stated that this is her sole residential premise. In such view of the matter, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the concerned authorities for being allowed a reasonable amount of time, in which event, the respondent authorities would be expected to consider the same judiciously.

¶54

The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.

¶55

No cost(s).

¶56

JUDGE

¶57

Comparing Assistant

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Demolition order dated 13.07.2023 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, GMDA directing the petitioner to demolish the RCC ground plus two floors building and the RCC toilet constructed at House No. GMC/21, Naban Borough Port, near Manasa Mandir, Gorchuk.¶33
Chief Executive Officer, Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority · 13.07.2023
Prior proceeding
Petitioner purchased a plot measuring 17 lechas under dag no. 670 (old)/(810) (New), Village Fatasil, Beltola Mouza, from Sri Prabhat Boro by agreement on stamp paper, unaware it was patta land of one Dipak Baruah; constructed RCC Ground+2 building in 2017; GMC allotted holding number 12072830 and Assessment ID no. 06-80-12072830.¶30
Prior proceeding
Show cause notice dated 12.06.2023 issued under Sections 87 and 88 of the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1985 by the CEO, GMDA, alleging construction without valid permission.¶31
Prior proceeding
Petitioner submitted her reply to the show cause notice on 03.07.2023 explaining the circumstances of acquisition of the plot.¶33
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed a representation on 20.07.2023 praying for opportunity and reasonable time to obtain permission and regularize the construction; she alleged it was not disposed of.¶33
Prior proceeding
On issuing notice on 21.07.2023, this Court directed that no coercive steps shall be taken regarding the petitioner's construction; CEO, GMDA given liberty to pass appropriate orders on the 20.07.2023 representation.¶35
Prior proceeding
Additional affidavit filed on 16.08.2023 bringing on record letter dated 26.07.2023 of the Associate Planner, GMC requiring copies of No Objection certificate, approved plan and occupancy certificate.¶34
Prior proceeding
Representation made to the Chairman, GMDA on 20.07.2023 was found not acceptable and disposed of by order dated 31.10.2023.¶38
Prior proceeding
Actual owner Sri Dipak Kumar Baruah sought sale of the plot to the petitioner's husband: application acknowledgement 25.03.2025; NOC by District Commissioner, Kamrup Mohanagar 05.06.2025; GMDA no-objection certificate 23.07.2025; Sub Registrar refused registration owing to GMDA letter dated 02.08.2025 cancelling the land sale permission until further orders.¶41
Prior proceeding
Petitioner filed IA(Civil) No. 2769 of 2025 praying for directions to allow execution of the sale of the plot by setting aside the impugned letter dated 02.08.2025.¶41
Prior proceeding
With consent of parties, matter listed under Order (Stay Vacating) taken up for entire disposal at this stage; pleadings complete with respondents' affidavit-in-opposition and petitioner's reply.¶29

Smti Anita Das v. the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smti Anita Das v. the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhanu Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Dayal Ch Dey Vs Sunil Kumar Kejriwal

Dayal Ch Dey Vs Sunil Kumar Kejriwal

Kazibar Rahman Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Raju Islam and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

MD Jamir Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.