Ranjan Sovasaria Vs Sushil Agarwal and 4 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010050552026

2026:GAU-AS:7965-

DB

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

¶6

Case No. : WA/77/2026

¶7

RANJAN SOVASARIA

¶8

LATE SITARAM SOVASARIA R/O THANA ROAD, P.O, P.S AND DISTTINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN 786125

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

SUSHIL AGARWAL AND 4 ORS LATE SHEONARAYAN AGARWAL, R/O CHAMBER ROAD, WARD NO. 11, TINSUKIA, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM, PIN 786125

¶11

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT GOVT. OF ASSAM JANATA BHAWAN 1ST FLOOR D- BLOCK DISPUR PIN- 781006 KAMRUP METRO ASSAM

¶12

3:THE TINSUKIA MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN GNB ROAD TINSUKIA P.O AND DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM

¶13

4:THE EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE TINSUKIA MUNICIPAL BOARD

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

GNB ROAD TINSUKIA P.O AND DIST- TINSUKIA ASSAM 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER TINSUKIA BORGURI P.O- TINSUKIA DIST- TINSUKIA ASSA

¶16

For the appellant (s) : Mr. S. Islam, Advocate

¶17

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Chamaria, Advocate Mr. D. K. Sarmah, Addl. Sr. GA, Assam

¶18

– B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶19

08.06.2026

¶20

(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)

¶21

We have heard Mr. S. Islam, learned Advocate for the appellant; Mr. S. Chamaria, learned Advocate for the respondent No. 1, and Mr. D.K. Sarmah, learned senior Government Advocate for the State.

¶22

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved with the order dated 06.02.2026, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 6071/2023, wherein the appellant had been impleaded as respondent No. 5.

¶23

This appeal has arisen out of a dispute between two neighbours in Tinsukia town, allegedly because of some illegal constructions.

¶24

The appellant owns a plot of land, over which he has constructed a commercial building after obtaining necessary building permission from

¶25

Page No.# 3/4

¶26

the Tinsukia Municipal Board. The respondent No. 1/writ petitioner has a shop adjacent to the south of the building of the appellant. There was a dispute between the two neighbours on account of the appellant having extended the construction of his building up to the boundary wall of the respondent No. 1, leaving no space between the two buildings, which, according to the respondent No. 1, is in breach of the building bye-laws and the provisions of the Assam Town and Country Planning Act as also in derogation of the fire safety rules.

¶27

A demolition notice was issued by the Tinsukia Municipal Board and as on date the claim of the appellant is that 80% of the deviated portion of the construction has already been removed. The remaining 20% of the deviated portion could not be removed for the reason of the same being so close to the construction made by the respondent No. 1 that such demolition/removal would definitely cause damage to the property of the respondent No. 1.

¶28

When the dispute came before the learned Single Judge, it was directed, on consent of both the parties, that the boundary between the buildings/properties of both the parties shall be demarcated, whereafter the constructions made in deviation of the construction plan shall be removed by the appellant, but by taking special care not to cause any damage to the building/property of the respondent No. 1.

¶29

The consent order appears to have been appealed against on the ground that rest 20% of the deviation cannot be demolished without necessarily causing damage to the property of the respondent No. 1 and, in that case, there would be breach of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶30

Page No.# 4/4

¶31

This calls for only a modification of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which was a consent order.

¶32

Be that as it may, today we find that up till now, the demarcation has not been done.

¶33

Mr. Sarmah, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 and 5 has informed this Court that the process has been set afoot for demarcation of the boundary between the buildings/properties of the appellant and the respondent No. 1.

¶34

Let the demarcation be made positively within a period of four weeks from today, in which process both the appellant and the respondent No. 1 shall co-operate and, thereafter, any construction made by either of the parties in deviation of the approved plan, shall be removed.

¶35

We reiterate the concern of the learned Single Judge that any demolition would be carried out only after taking adequate precaution that no property is unnecessarily damaged.

¶36

The appeal stands disposed off.

¶37

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶38

Comparing Assistant

Ranjan Sovasaria v. Sushil Agarwal and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranjan Sovasaria v. Sushil Agarwal 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

Rajdeep Rajkhowa Vs Swagatam Borhajowal

M/S Bhagwan Das Bagri and Sons Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

The Uco Bank and 2 Ors. Vs Kandarpa Kumar Kalita and Anr.

Raja Karanchat Basumatary and 198 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 155 Ors.

The State of Assam and 3 Ors. Vs Rabbul HUDA and 30 Ors.

Gs No 180368HNTD Mahender Singh Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.