Sushil Agarwal Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Heard Mr. S. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 4, Mr. S.S. Roy, learned standing counsel, Tinsukia Municipal Board, appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Mr. H.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

¶27

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuing direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take immediate measures against the respondent No.5, in terms of the law applicable thereto and ensure that the construction carried out by the said respondent has to be done strictly as per the building bye laws thereto and also to issue direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take proper action against the respondent No.5 for carrying out illegal construction by calling a thorough field verification report and thereafter to demolish the deviated portion of the building of the respondent No.5 so constructed in violation of the building bye laws.

¶28

3. Mr. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.5 has been carrying out illegal construction work besides the commercial premises of the petitioner at Tinsukia town in contravention to the building bye laws on several counts. The petitioner then filed several complaints for taking appropriate actions with the respondent Nos.2 and 3, but they failed to take any action against the respondent No.5, who has been carrying out the construction in contravention of the law and being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition

¶29

Page No.# 3/4

¶30

seeking the aforementioned reliefs.

¶31

4. Mr. Roy, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 are ready to demolish the deviated portion of the construction carried out by the respondent No.5 and to that effect demolition notice was issued on 16.11.2021 and again reminder was issued on 26.11.2021 to the respondent No.5, to dismantle the unauthorised construction work, which was carried out beyond the permissible limit. However, if demolition of the deviated portion is carried out, then it may cause some damage to the property of the petitioner also and in that case, the petitioner may file compensation case against the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶32

5. At this stage, Mr. Chamaria, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already filed an affidavit pursuant to the order of this Court dated 31.10.2025 and the petitioner does not have any objection if the illegal construction work, mentioned in the demolition notice, dated 16.11.2021 and 26.11.2021, carried out by the respondent No.5 would be demolished under the supervision of respondent No.2 with machinery and due caution and as such, the question of filing compensation case in the event of causing any damage to the petitioner's building does not arise.

¶33

6. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent No.5, however, submits that before carrying out the demolition, demarcation of the boundary has to be carried out and earlier the Circle Officer, Tinsukia has tried to demarcate the boundary, but the petitioner has opposed to the same and under such circumstances, he submits that before carrying out the demolition work, the Circle Officer may be directed to demarcate the boundary and thereafter, to carry out the demolition work.

¶34

7. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and also the orders passed by this Court on different dates. And taking note of the submission of learned counsel for both the parties and also as agreed upon, this Court is inclined to dispose of this

¶35

Page No.# 4/4

¶36

petition by directing the District Commissioner, Tinsukia to demarcate the boundary of the petitioner and the respondent No.5 and thereafter, to demolish the illegal construction work, as mentioned in the demolition notice dated 16.11.2021 and 26.11.2021, after taking due care and caution, so that no harm is caused to the existing structure of the petitioner.

¶37

8. The aforementioned exercise shall be carried out within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 within a period of one week from today.

¶38

9. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶39

Sd/- Robin Phukan JUDGE

¶40

Comparing Assistant

Sushil Agarwal v. the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Agarwal 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

Afazuddin Ahmed Vs MD Rabiul Ali and 2 Ors.

Shree Prakash Singh Vs Trishit Dhar

M Tec Innovations Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Dilowara Begum and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 10 Ors.

Sri Jayanta Borooah Vs the State of Assam

Bishuram Chauhan Vs Chandan Sharma and Ors.