Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(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.

(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.

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.