Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2790 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 14 August, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                                 Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010013032019




                                                           2025:GAU-AS:10840

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

                        Case No. : WP(C)/379/2019

         PHANINDRA NATH PHUKAN
         S/O- LT SABHARAM PHUKAN, R/O- UJONI SENSOWA GAON NO. 3, P.O.
         BORBHETA- 785004, DIST- JORHAT, ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
         REP. BY THE COMM. ANND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, URBAN
         DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

         2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
          JORHAT- 785001

         3:THE JORHAT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
          REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR
          JORHAT
          DIST- JORHAT
         ASSAM
          PIN- 785001

         4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
          JORHAT EAST REVENUE CIRCLE
          JORHAT
          P.O. JORHAT- 785001
          DIST- JORHAT
         ASSAM

         5:SHRI RATHINDRA NATH sHARMA pATHAK
          S/o Lt PURNA KANTA SARMA PATHAK
         R/O JAIL ROAD
          JORHAT
         PO-BORBHETA-785001
                                                                         Page No.# 2/6

            DIST-JORHAT
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR B D DAS, MR H K SARMA,MRS R DEKA

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. U K GOSWAMI (R3),MR. D. K. SARMAH (R-4)




             Linked Case : WP(C)/5897/2019

            PHANINDRA NATH PHUKAN
            S/O- LT SABHARAM PHUKAN
            R/O- UJONI SENSOWA GAON NO. 3
            P.O. BORBHETA- 785004
            DIST JORHAT
            ASSAM


             VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
            REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
            URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPTT.
            DISPUR

             GHY-6

            2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER
            JORHAT

             3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
            JORHAT EAST REVENUE CIRCLE
             JORHAT
             P.O. JORHAT- 785001
             DIST- JORHAT

             ASSAM

            4:RATHINDRA NATH SHARMA PATHAK
            S/O LT. PURNA KANTA SARMA PATHAK
            R/O JAIL ROAD
            JORHAT
            P.O. BORBHETA 785001
            DIST. JORHAT
                                                                      Page No.# 3/6

           ASSAM
           ------------

Advocate for : MR B D DAS Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.

BEFORE

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

Advocate for the petitioner : Shri BD Das, Sr. Advocate Shri HK Sarma

Advocate for the respondents : Ms. M. Barman, G.A.-Assam Shri UK Goswami, R.-3 Ms. A. Talukdar, R.-5.

            Date of hearing      :      14.08.2025
            Date of Judgment     :      14.08.2025
                                      Judgment & Order

Both these writ petitions being filed by the same petitioner and are connected, those are being considered in an analogous hearing and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. The facts projected are that the petitioner, who has retired from service, had purchased a plot of land measuring 1 katha 10 lechas covered by Dag No. 9949 on 01.10.2008. Thereafter, on 21.01.2012, he had purchased an adjacent plot measuring 7 lechas. However, in between the petitioner had sold a part of the land measuring 1 katha 2 lechas on 06.06.2011. There is however a mistake committed by the petitioner while applying for the building permission in which he had depicted the area of land as 1 katha 10 lechas which should have been 15 lechas. It also appears that the same mistake was overlooked in the spot verification and accordingly the petitioner had gone ahead with the Page No.# 4/6

constructions. Detecting the aforesaid irregularity, the Jorhat Development Authority had issued demolition notice. It is the case of the petitioner that he had made an application for purchase of land measuring 2.28 lechas accompanied by an agreement to sale in which notice was issued on 10.10.2018 by the Circle Officer to the Pattadars of the adjoining plots for sale. The grievance of the petitioner is that such consideration has to be made by the Deputy Commissioner (presently District Commissioner) under the Office Memorandum dated 31.10.2017 and without doing so, the Circle Officer has rejected the application by denying the permission. Accordingly, the petitioner is apprehending demolition of the structure without even his application for purchase of the land in question being considered by the appropriate authority.

3. I have heard Shri BD Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Shri H.K. Sarma, learned counsel. I have also heard Ms. M. Barman, learned State Counsel as well as Shri UK Goswami, learned counsel, Jorhat Development Authority for the respondent no. 3 and Ms. A. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

4. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that indeed a mistake had occurred while applying for the building permission in which the description of the area of the land was stated to be 1 katha 10 lechas which should have been shown as 15 lechas. He however submits that in terms of the permission granted after the spot verification, the construction was done and to rectify the same, the petitioner has already entered into a deed of agreement to purchase an area of land measuring 2.28 lechas over which the portion of the construction which has been termed to be illegal is there. He has submitted that the rejection of the permission by the Circle Officer is without any authority of law as the Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2017 holding the field contemplates Page No.# 5/6

the authority to be the District Commissioner.

5. On the other hand, Shri Goswami, learned counsel for the Jorhat Development Authority has however submitted that all actions taken for demolition are strictly in accordance with law as the construction has been made on an area which is not owned by the petitioner.

6. Ms. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has also supported the views expressed by the learned counsel for the Jorhat Development Authority and has submitted that the construction being unauthorized, the same should be demolished.

7. Ms. Barman, learned State Counsel has however not disputed the position that as per the Office Memorandum dated 31.10.2017, the designated authority to take a decision on the aspect of sale of land is the District Commissioner of the concerned district.

8. The rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully perused.

9. From the materials before this Court, the action of the Jorhat Development Authority to issue the notice for demolition, per se cannot be said to be illegal inasmuch as, the land on which the portion of the construction is standing is not owned by the petitioner. At the same time, it is also on record that the petitioner had indeed entered into a deed of agreement for purchase of an area of land measuring 2.28 lechas over which the aforesaid portion of the construction is standing and the said permission has been rejected by the Circle Officer.

10. This Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served and the equities would be balanced by keeping in abeyance the action of the Jorhat Page No.# 6/6

Development Authority to demolish the structure in question unless a decision is taken on the application for purchase of land made by the petitioner for 2.28 lechas by the competent authority, namely, the District Commissioner.

11. It is accordingly directed.

12. This Court further observes that in the event, the competent authority, namely, the District Commissioner rejects the application for purchase of the aforesaid area of 2.28 lechas, the Jorhat Development Authority would have the liberty to go ahead with their action for demolition of the unauthorized structure but till such a decision is taken by the said authority, the proposed action may not be gone ahead with. It is also clarified that in case the petitioner is aggrieved by any decision taken by the appropriate authority, namely, the District Commissioner, he would have the liberty to challenge such decision which however has to be done strictly in accordance with law.

13. Since these matters are pending a long back, the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh application before the District Commissioner, Jorhat within a period of 3 (three) weeks from today and on submission of such application, the same is to be considered expeditiously and strictly in accordance with the law and the decisions taken be conveyed to the petitioner preferably within a period of 2(two) months from the date of submission of such application.

14. Both the writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of.

15. No order as to cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant