Binod Hazarika Vs the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority and Anr.

Heard Mr. S. P. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S. Bora, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3.

¶21

The petitioner herein has assailed the communication dated 05.08.2014 whereby the petitioner was directed to vacate the official quarter of the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA).

¶22

From the materials on the record, it reveals that it is the case of the petitioner that the erstwhile Guwahati Development Authority (GDA) had planned a model township for landless people and displaced persons in order to accommodate such persons so that the encroachment over the hills, forest, land, wasteland etc. may be minimized. For that purpose, a project was started at Kharghuli. It is the further case of the petitioner that on account of certain reasons, the project could not be completed, and thereupon, most of the people either purchased the land or buildings from the erstwhile GDA. The further case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was one of the aspirants and applied for housing accommodation in such official quarter. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) had assured that the petitioner's allotment would be regularized and used to realize the rent from the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been paying rent to the GMC, and thus, a tenant of the erstwhile GDA. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Chief Executive Officer of the GMDA had directed the petitioner to vacate the quarter vide

¶23

Page No.# 3/6

¶24

the impugned order dated 05.08.2014 which could not have been done so taking into account that the property in question belonged to the GMC after the dissolution of the GDA.

¶25

The record reveals that pursuant to the filing of the instant writ petition, this Court issued notice and further directed that no coercive measures should be enforced to evict the petitioner from the official quarter.

¶26

The record reveals that an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the Secretary, GMDA stating inter-alia that by virtue of Section 125 (1) (b) of the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1985 (for short, ‘the Act of 1985’), all the properties belonging to the GDA vested upon the GMDA. In the affidavit-in-opposition, the authenticity of the letter on the basis of which the petitioner had claimed to be in possession of the said building was stated to be highly doubtful in as much as the land in question on which the building stands was purchased by the GDA on 27.03.1963 and the said land continued to remain a property of the GDA till it vested upon the GMDA by virtue of Section 125 (1) (b) of the Act of 1985. It is also averred that the petitioner has no right to remain in possession of the said premises, as the petitioner was neither an employee of the GMDA nor the petitioner was permitted to occupy the quarter in question. An additional affidavit was filed by the petitioner wherein the petitioner reiterated its stand to the effect that when the property belonged to the GMC by virtue of Section 2(d) of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971 (for short, ‘the Act of 1971’), the GMDA had no authority over the said property in question.

¶27

Page No.# 4/6

¶28

In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take note of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶29

Mr. S. P. Roy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the GMC is the authority who has the jurisdiction to take any steps against the petitioner as the quarter belongs to the GMC and not to the GMDA. In that regard, he referred to Section 2(d) of the Act of 1971 and submitted that by virtue of the said provision, all properties movable and immovable and all interests of whatsoever nature and kind therein vested in any of the aforesaid local authorities which would include the GDA, immediately before such establishment shall with all rights of whatsoever description used, enjoyed or possessed by anybody or authority vest in the GMC. He, therefore, submitted that the GMDA had no authority to direct the petitioner to vacate the quarter in question. Additionally, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that in order to evict the petitioner from the quarter, the respondent authorities can only take steps by following the due process. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that under no circumstances by exercise of force, the petitioner can be evicted.

¶30

Per contra, Mr. S. Bora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the GMC & GMDA submitted that the GDA was dissolved after coming into effect of the Act of 1985 and this aspect of the matter would be clear from a reading of Section 124 of the Act of 1985. He further submitted that a further perusal of Section 125(1) (b) of the Act of 1985 would show that all properties, funds and dues which were vested in or realizable by the GDA

¶31

Page No.# 5/6

¶32

shall vest in and be realizable by the GDA. He therefore submitted that the GMDA has the absolute right over the property in question. In addition to that, Mr. S. Bora, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the GMC & GMDA further submitted that the petitioner has failed to show any document that there has been any realization of rent as well as that any amount was charged by the GMC. Additionally, it was also further submitted that the quarter in question belongs to the GMDA staff building and as the petitioner is neither an employee of the GMDA nor the GMDA had allotted the quarter to the petitioner, the petitioner has therefore to vacate the official quarter.

¶33

This Court upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties have also perused the provisions of Section 2(b) of the Act 1971 as well as Sections 124 and 125 (1) (b) of the Act of 1985. From a perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that Section 2 (d) of the Act of 1971 does not refer to the GDA, rather it only refers to the local authorities as mentioned in Section 2 of the Act of 1971 On the other hand, a perusal of Section 124 of the Act of 1985 categorically mentions that it is only after coming into effect of the Act of 1985, the State Government shall vide notification in the Official Gazette declared that the GDA constituted under the provisions of the Assam Town and Country Planning Act, 1959 shall be dissolved with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification and the GDA shall stand dissolved accordingly. Under such circumstances, the question of the dissolving of the GDA prior to the coming into effect of Section 124 of the Act of 1985 does not arise. Additionally, a perusal of Section 125 (1) (b) of the Act of 1985

¶34

Page No.# 6/6

¶35

also would show that all the properties belonging to the GDA would stand vested upon the GMDA statutorily.

¶36

Now the next question which arises is as to whether the petitioner can be asked to vacate from the official quarter of the GMDA on the basis of the communication dated 05.08.2014. This Court having perused the said impugned communication is of the opinion that the said document does not suffer from any error requiring this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction.

¶37

Accordingly, the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:-

¶38

(i) This Court finds no merit in the challenge to the communication dated 05.08.2014 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority.

¶39

(ii) This Court further directs that the respondent authorities, more particularly the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority can evict the petitioner only by following the due process, i.e. by applying the applicable provisions of law.

¶40

(iii) Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Binod Hazarika v. the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Hazarika v. the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority and Anr.

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

Momtaz Begum and 8 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Shudha Kantha Dr. Bhupen Hazarika Protimurti Sangrakshan Samitee and 11 Ors. Vs Union of India and 7 Ors.

Nilkamal Malodas Vs Union of India and 6 Ors.

Neeraj Bharali Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Ramesh Barman and 5 Ors. Vs Md. Sirajuddin Ahmed

The Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs and Ors. Vs M/S. Barkataki Print and Media Services and Ors.