Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/5 vs The Guwahati Metropolitan Development ... on 16 December, 2025

                                                                Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010021832021




                                                          2025:GAU-AS:17401

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

                          Case No. : WP(C)/812/2021

         GANESH DAS AND 3 ORS
         S/O. LT. DINA DAS, SRIMANTAPUR, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI-781005.

         2: HEMANTA KALITA
          S/O. LT. KUNJARAM KALITA
          SRIMANTAPUR
          BHANGAGARH
          GUWAHATI-781005.

         3: SANTOSH DAS
          S/O. LT. SACHI MOHAN DAS
          SRIMANTAPUR
          BY LANE-4
          HOUSE NO.2
          BHANGAGARH
          GUWAHATI-781005.

         4: MRIGEN KUMAR DAS
          S/O. LT. HARGOBINDA DAS
          BY LANE-4
          HOUSE NO.4
          BHANGAGARH
          GUWAHATI-781005
         ASSAM

         VERSUS

         THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND 2 ORS
         BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI-781005.

         2:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

          GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
          BHANGAGARH
                                                                         Page No.# 2/5

             GUWAHATI-781005.

            3:M/S S M ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPERS RUPNAGAR

             ULUBARI REP. BY SRI SANDEEP AGARWAL
             GUWAHATI-781007

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. R MAZUMDAR, MR H J SAIKIA,MR H BEZBARUA,MR. M
DUTTA

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, G M D A,




                                BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

                                         ORDER

Date : 16-12-2025 Heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, GMDA for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. None appears for the respondent No. 3, despite service of notice.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the No Objection Certificate (NOC) dated 05.09.2018 and the Planning Permit dated 22.09.2020, issued by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority, Guwahati, whereby the NOCs/Planning Permit were issued in favor of M/s S. M. Engineering & Developers, the respondent No. 3 herein, for the construction of a G+9 building at Srimantapur, Rupnagar, Guwahati, on the ground that the area falls under the Eco-Sensitive Zone.

3. The petitioners, four in number, claim to be residents of the locality of Srimantapur, Rupnagar, Guwahati, and are affected by the construction of the high-rise building. They claim that the area of Srimantapur falls under Page No.# 3/5 the Eco-Sensitive Zone, where the construction of any high-rise building cannot be permitted. However, the respondent authorities, in defiance of all applicable rules and norms, issued NOC for the construction of an RCC building on 09.11.2012. Subsequently, the CEO issued another NOC for the construction of an RCC building on 05.09.2018, cancelling the earlier NOC dated 09.11.2012. Consequently, a Planning Permit dated 22.09.2020 was issued in favor of respondent No. 3, permitting the construction of a G+9 RCC building.

4. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioners, referring to the RTI reply dated 06.03.2020 issued by the State Public Information Officer, Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority, Bhangagarh, Guwahati, submits that, as per the Master Plan for Guwahati Metropolitan Area-2025, the area in question falls within the Eco-Sensitive Zone. Therefore, allowing respondent No. 3 to construct a G+9 RCC building in an Eco- Sensitive Zone violates the Master Plan for Guwahati Metropolitan Area- 2025 and the Building Bye-Laws of the State in force. He submits that the impugned NOC and the Planning Permit issued in favor of respondent No. 3 are liable to be interfered with, as they are not in consonance with the Building Bye-Laws and such construction is adversely affecting the petitioners.

5. Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for GMDA, on the other hand, submits that the construction is being undertaken by respondent No. 3 in accordance with the NOC. He further submits that the construction site where respondent No. 3 is undertaking the construction is not within the Eco-Sensitive Zone but falls under the Residential Zone as per the Master Plan for Guwahati Metropolitan Area-2025, which is clearly reflected in the Page No.# 4/5 Planning Permit issued on 22.09.2020. He submits that the RTI reply issued by the State Public Information Officer, Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority, Bhangagarh, Guwahati, inadvertently indicated that the area falls within the Eco-Sensitive Zone, which is contrary to the official records. He submits that the impugned NOC and the Planning Permit have been issued in accordance with the Master Plan for Guwahati Metropolitan Area-2025. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners is incorrect, as the area does not fall under the Eco-Sensitive Zone but rather under the Residential Zone.

6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on records.

7. The RTI reply dated 06.03.2020, issued by the State Public Information Officer, Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority, Bhangagarh, Guwahati, reflects that the area in question falls under the Eco-Sensitive Zone as per the Master Plan for Guwahati Metropolitan Area- 2025. However, the respondent authorities have clarified that the RTI reply, which indicated that the area where respondent No. 3 is undertaking construction falls within the Eco-Sensitive Zone, was inadvertently issued and is contrary to the official records. According to the Master Plan for Guwahati Metropolitan Area-2025, the construction site actually falls within the Residential Zone.

8. It is also seen that the No Objection Certificate (NOC) was issued in accordance with the Building Bye-Laws of 2006, as amended from time to time, as well as the provisions of the Guwahati Building Construction (Regulation), 2014 and the Guwahati Building Construction (Regulation) (Amendment) Bye-Laws, 2020. The construction undertaken by the Page No.# 5/5 respondent No. 3, comprising a G+9 RCC building, was permitted by the NOC dated 05.09.2018 in terms of the Guwahati Building Construction (Regulation), 2014. Thereafter, the construction of nine (9) floors was permitted under the provisions of the Guwahati Building Construction (Regulation) (Amendment) Bye-Laws, 2020. Thus, the Planning Permit was issued to respondent No. 3 for construction of the G+9 RCC building as the area in question falls within a Residential Zone and therefore, the claim of the petitioners that the area is an Eco-Sensitive Zone is clearly negated.

9. Having considered that the area, namely, Srimantapur, Rupnagar, Guwahati, wherein the respondent No. 3 has been allowed to construct the G+9 RCC building, falls under the Residential Zone in accordance with the Building Bye-Laws, and considering that the RTI reply showing the area to be under the Eco-Sensitive Zone was an inadvertent error, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have not been able to make out any case for interference with the impugned NOC and the Planning Permit issued by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority, Guwahati, in favour of the respondent No. 3. Consequently, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant