Gauhati High Court
Deepak Kumar Jalan vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 7 November, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010246612025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6319/2025
DEEPAK KUMAR JALAN
S/O SANWARMAL JALAN, R/O BANKONWAR TILLA, KHARGHULI,
GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (M), ASSAM-781004
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, GUWAHATI DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
(GDD), JANATA BHAWAN (ASSAM SECRETARIAT COMPLEX), DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-781006
2:THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GMDA)
TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(GMDA)
3RD FLOOR
STATFED BUILDING
GMCH ROAD
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-781005
3:THE CHAIRMAN
GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
STATFED BUILDING
GMCH ROAD
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-781005
4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
Page No.# 2/9
GUWWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
STATFED BUILDING
GMCH ROAD
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-781005
5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
GUWAHATI REVENUE CIRCLE
O/O THE CIRCLE OFFICER
ULUBARI
GUWAHATI
KAMRUP (M)-781007
6:RIMZIM MAHANTA
R/O HOUSE NO. 17
BANKONWAR-TILLA
KHARGULI
GUWAHATI-78100
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, Advocate
: Ms. S. Todi, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Nayak, Addl. AG, Assam
: Ms. U. Das, Addl. Sr. GA, Assam
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
Date : 07.11.2025 Issue notice making it returnable on 27.11.2025.
2. Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General who is also the Standing counsel of the GDD and GMDA accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Ms. U. Das, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent No.5.
3. As the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 are duly represented, extra copies of Page No.# 3/9 the writ petition be served upon them during the course of the day.
4. As regards the Respondent No.6, the Petitioner is directed to take steps by way of Speed Post during the course of the day.
5. In addition to that, the Petitioner is given the liberty to take steps upon the Respondent No.6 by way of dasti routed through the Registry of this Court and file an affidavit of service on or before the next date.
6. The Petitioner herein is aggrieved by the Minutes of the Meeting dated 11.07.2025; Orders dated 26.08.2025 as well as the subsequent order passed on 27.10.2025 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority whereby directions have been given for demolition of the following:
(i) Entire first, second and third floor over the basement + ground floor;
(ii) Cantilever projection in first floor of 0.36 meter in North setback; and
(iii) Zero setback in the North side. (Setback to be maintained 7.40 meters & 13.10 meters), premises - Bankonwar tilla, Kharguli, Guwahati.
7. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner had purchased a conjoint plot of land by three different Deeds of Sale admeasuring 4 Kathas 17 Lechas in various Dags and Patta numbers. Thereupon, the Petitioner applied for permission from the GMDA Authorities on 23.11.2007 seeking permission for construction of a residential building. The permission was accorded on 29.04.2008 for ground floor and basement and further mentioning therein the setbacks on the four Page No.# 4/9 different boundaries. The Petitioner thereupon submitted another application on 16.03.2009, thereby seeking further permission for construction of one floor below the basement and one floor above the ground floor.
8. It is the case of the Petitioner that the said permission though applied for and payment duly made, the Respondent GMDA Authorities thereafter never intimated the Petitioner about any rejection of the said application. Under such circumstances, in terms with Section 25(4) of the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act of 1985'), it is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner had a deemed permission to construct one floor below the basement and one floor above the ground floor. The Petitioner thereupon duly made such construction and the same were completed sometime in the year 2014 which was assessed by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation vide an assessment order on 06.06.2014.
9. On the basis of a complaint made by the Respondent No.6, the Petitioner was issued certain notices in the year 2024 and the Petitioner thereupon replied to the same. On 11.07.2025, a meeting was held wherein it was recorded that on the issue pertaining to land encroachment of the Petitioner's land by the Respondent No.6, the same would be decided by the appropriate forum. However, it was found that the construction of the first floor, second floor and third floor were in violation of the approved plan without NOC and is to be treated unauthorized and appropriate order may be issued by the Authority as per the Act of 1985.
10. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Chief Executive Officer of the Page No.# 5/9 GMDA issued an order on 26.08.2025 whereby revoked the earlier NOC so granted in exercise of the powers under Section 33 of the Act of 1985. On the same date, another order was passed by the Chief Executive Officer thereby directing inter alia to demolish the RCC residential building (B+G+3) of the Petitioner within 3 (three) days from the issue of the order for demolition of the violated portions failing which the GMDA would be free to go ahead with the demolition process and the cost of the demolition shall be recovered from the Petitioner. It was categorically mentioned in the said order that what is to be demolished. It is seen that the directions which were passed for demolition were:
(i) Entire first, second and third floor over the basement + ground floor;
(ii) Cantilever projection in first floor of 0.36 meter in North setback;
(iii) Zero setback in the North side. (Setback to be maintained 7.40 meters & 13.10 meters).
11. The Petitioner on coming to learn had submitted a representation on 02.09.2025 however, nothing was done. On the other hand, on 27.10.2025, an order was passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the GMDA whereby it was informed that the unauthorized construction so carried out by the Petitioner would be demolished on 10.11.2025 and it is under such circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.
12. Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the question of revocation of the NOC so granted in the year 2008 after the construction having been carried out Page No.# 6/9 not only is in violation to the principles of natural justice inasmuch as there was no Show Cause Notice was issued prior thereto, but also is contrary to Section 33(1)(a) of the Act of 1985. The learned Senior counsel further referring to Section 25(4) of the Act of 1985 submitted that the Petitioner duly submitted the application on 16.03.2009 seeking permission for construction of one floor below the already permitted basement floor and one floor above the ground floor. The said application was neither rejected nor any such rejection was informed to the Petitioner and as such, it is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner had a deemed permission by virtue of Section 25(4) of the Act of 1985. The learned Senior counsel further submitted that it is unconceivable as to how the Respondent Authorities have unilaterally without any notice revoked the permission which was already granted in the year 2008 and thereupon have directed demolition of the entire building which is B+G+3. He therefore submitted that this is a case where the Respondent Authorities have acted in a most arbitrary manner and requires interference.
13. Per contra, Mr. P. Nayak, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the Petitioner had the permission to construct only the basement as well as the ground floor. However, the Petitioner is not only constructed the basement and the ground floor, but three floors above and as such, the construction was absolutely illegal and unauthorized for which the actions so taken by the Respondent Authorities ought not to be interfered with. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the orders dated 26.08.2025 is only limited to demolition of the entire first floor, second Page No.# 7/9 floor and third Floor and not the basement plus the ground floor. He further submitted that as regards the cantilever projections as well as the maintaining of zero setbacks, it is categorically even mentioned in the original permission which had been granted in the year 2008 that the Petitioner was required to maintain such setback on the north side and therefore he submitted that this is not a fit case where there should be any interim orders passed. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that as has been informed to him verbally, the very application which was submitted by the Petitioner in the year 2009 was rejected in the year 2009 itself which is still appearing in the system of the GMDA.
14. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties on the question as to whether any interim direction is required to be passed in the present case.
15. From the materials on record, more particularly the impugned order dated 26.08.2025, it is apparent that the Chief Executive Officer of the GMDA have revoked the permission which was granted on 29.04.2008 and it prima facie appears subject to materials being placed before this Court by the Respondents that the same is not only in violation of the principles of natural justice but also violates the mandate of Section 33(1)(a) of the Act of 1985. This Court further takes note of the other impugned order dated 26.08.2025 whereby the Chief Executive Officer of the GMDA have directed the demolition of the entire residential building i.e. basement + ground floor + three floors above. On the other hand, it is the specific case of the Petitioner that there is no building as have been mentioned in the order inasmuch as the building in question is Page No.# 8/9 basement, ground floor and first floor and there is an additional basement of a small servant room below the basement floor. This aspect can be learnt only from certain photographs being placed before this Court as regards the building in question.
16. Liberty is given to both the parties to bring on record the photographs of the building before this Court by filing pleadings.
17. This Court also cannot brush aside the question whether by virtue of the deeming provision provided under Section 25(4) of the Act of 1985 which stipulates that if within 30 days of the application, the permission is not rejected, it shall be deemed that the permission has been granted. The Petitioner duly claims that he has a deemed permission.
18. Under such circumstances, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the subject matter of the dispute requires to be preserved till the next date.
19. Accordingly, this Court therefore directs the Respondent Authorities more particularly the Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 not to take any action in pursuance to the impugned orders dated 26.08.2025 as well as the order dated 27.10.2025 all issued by the Chief Executive Officer, GMDA till the next date.
20. The Respondents are directed to bring on record their stand by filing their pleadings on or before 19.11.2025.
21. Liberty given to the Petitioner to file reply on or before 26.11.2025.
22. On the next date, an attempt shall be made to dispose of the writ petition.
Page No.# 9/9
23. List accordingly.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant