Gauhati High Court
Niranjan Das vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 18 June, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010039332024
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1157/2024
NIRANJAN DAS
S/O- LATE TARAK CHANDRA DAS, RESIDENTS OF KALIMANDIR PATH,
DHIRENPARA, VILLAGE 2 NO. FATASIL (NON-K), GUWAHATI, P.O. AMBARI
FATASIL, PIN- 781025, DISTRICT OF KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF
ASSAM
HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
3:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-6
4:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
MINES AND MINERALS DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
5:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
MINES AND MINERALS DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006
Page No.# 2/4
6:THE COMMISSIONER
GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHAT
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M J QUADIR, MR S S ISLAM,MS S AHMED,MR. A K
HANNAN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, GA, ASSAM,SC, GMC
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
18.06.2025
Heard Shri AK Hannan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.
M Kalita, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Also heard Ms. H Baruah,
learned counsel appearing on instructions of Shri P Nayak, the learned counsel for the
respondent nos. 2, 3 and 6 as well as Shri SS Roy, learned State Counsel appearing for
the respondent nos. 4 and 5.
2. The instant writ petition is taken up for disposal at the motion stage itself,
taking into account that similar issues have already been decided by this Court.
3. It is the case of the petitioner herein that the petitioner is the patta holder of a
plot of land measuring about 3.87 Are covered by Dag No.1236 of Patta No.85 under
Revenue Village No.2, Fatasil under Mouza-Jalukbari in the district of Kamrup (M)
Guwahati. Petitioner's wife is also a patta holder of a plot of land measuring about
3.13 Are covered by Dag No. 1237, Patta No.85 under Mouza-Jalukbari, Kamrup (M),
Guwahati situated at Ganeshpara, Guwahati. The petitioner intends to build a
residential apartment over the said plot of land jointly by availing loan from the
financial institutions and by investing their own savings for the residential purpose.
Page No.# 3/4
Under such circumstances, the petitioner and his wife, in order to construct the
residential apartment have sought for permission before the Guwahati Metropolitan
Development Authority (for short, the GMDA) and had paid the requisite application
processing fee. In that regard, the petitioner has also been provided a file being
No.GMC/W23/0398/07122023 in the Office of the Commissioner, Guwahati Municipal
Corporation.
4. Subsequent, thereto, the petitioner was verbally instructed to pay an amount @
2% of the total project cost of the building as 'Forest Royalty' and, as such, the
petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court.
5. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities could not
have demanded payment of any forest royalty from the petitioner. On enquiry being
made, it could be found that the direction so verbally made for payment of the forest
royalty is on the basis of a communication issued by the Joint Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Mines and Minerals Department dated 02.03.2023 whereby, it
was mentioned that the Notification dated 07.10.2021, which was issued thereby to
bring into effect the Assam Minor Mineral Concession (Amendment) Rules 2021 (for
short, 'the Rules of 2021'), would also be applicable against the private agencies. The
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that vide the order
dated 24.09.2024, this Court had already set aside the communication dated
02.03.2023 which is the basis, upon which the verbal demand is being made by the
GMC authorities.
6. This Court has also perused the judgment and order dated 24.09.2024 passed in
WP(C)No.4085/2024 wherein, this Court had set aside the communication dated
02.03.2023 and further directed the GMC authorities to proceed with the consideration
of the building application filed by the petitioner without insisting upon the forest
Page No.# 4/4
royalty. Taking into account that the petitioner herein is similarly situated, it is the
opinion of this Court that the petitioner is also entitled to the similar reliefs as provided
to the petitioners in WP(C)No.4085/2024. Accordingly, this Court observes and directs
as follows:
(i). The Urban Local Bodies cannot impose royalty upon the private
person/entity in respect to private constructions carried out and
consequently cannot also insist on payment of royalty as a condition for
issuance of permission to construct and to carry out construction on the
basis of the permission so granted.
(ii). This Court issues a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
GMC/GMDA not to insist upon payment of royalty upon the petitioner as a
condition for granting permission to construct or carrying out construction
pursuant to the permission so granted.
7. With the above observation(s) and direction(s), the instant writ petition stands
disposed of. No costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
