WP(C)/622/2025 of SANJUKTA BORGOHAIN Vs GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND 15 ORS on 27 September 2026

ORDER

Date : 28.09.2026

1. Heard Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S Bora, learned standing counsel, GMDA & GMC for respondent Nos.1 to 7. Though notices were duly served upon respondent Nos.8 to 16, however, none appears for them.

2. The respondent No. 8 preferred a Title Suit registered as TS No.246/2005, against the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA), the Town Planner, The Chief Executive Officer and the petitioners herein, seeking a declaration that notices dated 28.04.2005 No.GMDA/UC/34/05/10 and GMDA/UC/34/05/12 dated 31.05.2005 and order No.GMDA/UC/34/2005/46 dated 22.11.2005 are illegal, arbitrary, mala fide, unauthorized and without jurisdiction.

3. The defendant No.4 therein i.e., the present petitioner filed a counter claim alleging illegal construction of the 5th floor and matters relating to the boundary wall. The suit was dismissed by the learned Munsiff under its judgment dated 18.06.2013.

4. The learned Munsiff held that the construction carried out by the plaintiff on the 5th floor of the scheduled property is illegal and without any permission from the concerned authority, and is therefore liable to be demolished.

5. The counter claim was also partly allowed with a direction that the portion of the compound wall of the building mentioned in the schedule of the counter claim is required to be demolished. The first appeal as well as second appeal preferred by the plaintiff also failed.

6. In the aforesaid backdrop, the present writ petition is filed alleging that, though the GMDA/GMC authority is required to demolish the 5th floor, they are not honouring the decree and also not acting upon their own decision to demolish such floor.

7. Per contra, Mr. S. Bora referring to a communication dated 15.02.2024 submits that notices for vacating the 5th floor has already been issued and on instructions, he submits that they will complete the process and their decision to demolish the illegal construction of the 5th floor within a very short time.

8. In view of the aforesaid submission, in the opinion of this court nothing survives in this writ petition as regards demolition of the 5th floor of the building in question. It is significant that such direction has already been issued in the judgment dated 18.06.2013, passed by the learned Trial Court in Title Suit No.246/2005.

9. At the same time, even in the absence of any such decree, the GMDA authorities are under bounden duty to demolish illegal constructions, more particularly, when any construction is without permission, inasmuch as the authorities have already determined that the 5th floor construction is illegal construction and without any permission.

10. Be that as it may, for the demolition of the boundary wall, when a decree is already there in favour of the petitioner, the learned counsel submits that he will suggest his client to file an application for execution of such decree.

11. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach this court once again, if the GMDA authorities fail to act and proceed in accordance with law within a reasonable time. JUDGE Comparing Assistant