Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/7 vs The Guwahati Metropolitan Development ... on 7 April, 2025
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010026092025
2025:GAU-AS:4395-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/116/2025
BINOD HAZARIKA S/O- LATE BHUBAN HAZARIKA,
R/O- KHARGULI, GUWAHATI-07, DIST- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
VERSUS
THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI-5
2:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER G.M.D.A. BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-781005
3:THE COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
GUWAHATI PANBAZAR GUWAHATI-0
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. V RAI, MR.T YADAV,JYOTISH DAS,MS P DEY,MR. S P ROY
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GMC, SC, G M D A
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Date of hearing : 07.04.2025
Date of Judgment & Order : 07.04.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)
Heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel, along with Ms. Vaishali Rai,
learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr.
Devajit Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam, assisted by Mr. S. Bora,
learned standing counsel, Guwahati Municipal Corporation(GMC), appearing
on behalf of all the respondents.
Page No.# 2/7
2. The present intra-Court appeal has been instituted by the appellant,
herein, assailing the judgment & order, dated 07.01.2025, passed by the
learned Single Judge in WP(c)4770/2014, rejecting the challenge made by
the appellant to the communication, dated 05.08.2014, issued by the
respondent No. 2, requiring him to vacate the premises occupied by him.
3. The appellant, herein, in WP(c)4770/2014, has projected that he was
an employee of Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) and while serving as
a Senior License Officer, had retired from his service on attaining the age of
superannuation w.e.f. 31.05.2009. The appellant was vide communication,
dated 13.05.1973, issued by the Chairman, Guwahati Metropolitan
Development Authority(GMDA), allowed to occupy a RCC double-storied
building pending finalization of his application, praying for allotment of a
house at the Development Colony.
4. The appellant, herein, has contended that in pursuance of the said
communication, dated 13.05.1973, he had occupied the premises, in
question, and continued to occupy the same. The respondents No. 1 & 2
had vide communication, dated 22.06.2012, required the appellant, herein,
to vacate the premises occupied by him, in-as-much as, the staff of the
Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority(GMDA) were submitting
applications for accommodation and accordingly, the appellant was directed
to vacate the quarter under his occupation within 30.06.2012. The
appellant, herein, on 26.06.2012, had submitted his reply to the
communication, dated 22.06.2012. The said communication was duly
noticed by the respondents No. 1 & 2 and thereafter, vide communication,
dated 05.08.2014, a notice came to be issued to the appellant by the
Page No.# 3/7
respondents No. 1 & 2, requiring him to vacate the quarter under his
occupation within 1(one) month from the date of receipt of the notice.
5. Being aggrieved, the appellant, herein, had approached the writ Court
by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)4770/2014. The writ Court,
vide order, dated 18.09.2014, had, in the interim, protected the interest of
the appellant and he, accordingly, continued to remain in occupation of the
premises, in question. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, took up the
said writ petition being WP(c)4770/2014, for final consideration and upon
hearing the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also on perusal
of the materials brought on record, was pleased vide judgment & order,
dated 07.01.2025, to dismiss the said writ petition, rejecting the challenge
made, therein, to the communication, dated 05.08.2014.
6. The learned Single Judge vide judgment & order, dated 07.01.2025, in
WP(c)4770/2014, had further directed the respondent authorities, more
particularly, the respondent No. 1 to evict the appellant, herein, only by
following the due process of law i.e. by applying the applicable provisions of
law. The interim directions passed earlier, also came to be vacated.
7. Assailing the judgment & order, dated 07.01.2025, passed by the
learned Single Judge in WP(c)4770/2014; Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the
appellant, has submitted that the appellant being in possession of the
premises with effect from the year 1973; the respondent authorities could
not have only by way of issuance of a notice, contemplated to evict the
appellant, herein, from the premises, in question.
Page No.# 4/7
8. Mr. Roy, learned counsel, by referring to the provisions of the
Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971, has submitted that the said Act
of 1971 had come into force w.e.f. 18.01.1973, and accordingly, in terms of
sub-Section 2(d) of Section 2 of the said Act; the Guwahati Metropolitan
Development Authority(GMDA) stood merged with the Guwahati Municipal
Corporation(GMC) and accordingly, the authorities of the Guwahati
Metropolitan Development Authority(GMDA) would have no jurisdiction to
evict the appellant, herein, from the premises, in question, in-as-much as,
the said premises belongs to the Guwahati Municipal Corporation(GMC).
The learned counsel has further submitted that the Guwahati Municipal
Corporation(GMC) has not instituted any proceedings towards evicting the
present appellant, herein, from the premises, in question, rather, the
Guwahati Municipal Corporation(GMC) authorities recognized his continuous
possession of the said premises.
9. Mr. Roy, learned counsel, has submitted that the learned Single Judge
while passing the impugned judgment & order, dated 07.01.2025, had
erred in drawing conclusions in the matter towards rejecting the prayer of
the appellant, herein, in the said writ petition, by ignoring the provisions of
the Guwahati Municipal Corporation Act, 1971.
10. Mr. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam, has supported the
impugned judgment & order, dated 07.01.2025, passed by the learned
Single Judge in WP(c)4770/2014, and has submitted that the same is a
well-reasoned one and would not call for any interference.
11. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and
Page No.# 5/7
also perused the materials available on record.
12. The contentions raised by Mr. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant,
before us, were the contentions so raised by the appellant, herein, in the
proceedings of WP(c)4770/2014. The learned Single Judge, on
consideration of the rival claims of the parties, had drawn the following
conclusions:
"9. This Court upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties have also perused the
provisions of Section 2(b) of the Act 1971 as well as Sections 124 and 125 (1) (b) of the
Act of 1985. From a perusal of the above provisions, it is clear that Section 2 (d) of the
Act of 1971 does not refer to the GDA, rather it only refers to the local authorities as
mentioned in Section 2 of the Act of 1971 On the other hand, a perusal of Section 124
of the Act of 1985 categorically mentions that it is only after coming into effect of the
Act of 1985, the State Government shall vide notification in the Official Gazette
declared that the GDA constituted under the provisions of the Assam Town and
Country Planning Act, 1959 shall be dissolved with effect from such date as may be
specified in the notification and the GDA shall stand dissolved accordingly. Under
such circumstances, the question of the dissolving of the GDA prior to the coming into
effect of Section 124 of the Act of 1985 does not arise. Additionally, a perusal of
Section 125 (1) (b) of the Act of 1985 also would show that all the properties belonging
to the GDA would stand vested upon the GMDA statutorily.
10. Now the next question which arises is as to whether the petitioner can be asked to
vacate from the official quarter of the GMDA on the basis of the communication dated
05.08.2014. This Court having perused the said impugned communication is of the
opinion that the said document does not suffer from any error requiring this Court to
exercise its writ jurisdiction.
11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition therefore stands disposed of with the
following observations and directions:-
(i) This Court finds no merit in the challenge to the communication dated
05.08.2014 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Guwahati Metropolitan
Development Authority.
(ii) This Court further directs that the respondent authorities, more particularly
the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority can evict the petitioner only
by following the due process, i.e. by applying the applicable provisions of law.
(iii) Interim order, if any, stands vacated."
Page No.# 6/7
13. A perusal of the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge in the
judgment & order, dated 07.01.2025, in WP(c)4770/2014, would go to
reveal that the same was so drawn by the learned Single Judge relying
upon the relevant provisions of law holding the field and there is no
perversity, therein. Further, the view taken by the learned Single Judge
being based on law holding the field; we are of the considered view that
the same is a plausible view and hence, would not call for any interference
in the present intra-Court appeal.
14. In this connection, reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Airport Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar
Banerjee, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 232, wherein, it has been held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in an intra-Court appeal, the finding of
fact of the learned Single Judge, unless such finding is concluded by the
appellate Bench to be perverse, would not be called to be disturbed. It has
been further held that merely because another view or a better view is
possible; there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order
passed by the learned Single Judge unless both sides agree for a fairer
approach on relief.
15. Applying the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to
above, to the facts of the present case, we having not found any perversity
with regard to the conclusions reached by the learned single Judge in the
impugned judgment & order, dated 07.01.2025, passed in WP(c)4770/
2014, and the view taken by the learned single Judge being a plausible
view; we are not persuaded by the submissions of the learned counsel for
the appellant, to take a different view in the matter. Accordingly, we are of
Page No.# 7/7
the considered view that the impugned judgment & order, dated
07.01.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)4770/2014, would
not warrant any interference.
16. In view of the above discussions, the instant writ appeal is held to be
devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
