Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs The Guwahati Metropolitan Development ... on 14 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/10
GAHC010111272025
2025:GAU-AS:13718
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/4081/2023
SMTI ANITA DAS
W/O SRI KULDIP DAS
R/O HOUSE NO. 21
NEBEN BORA PATH
NEAR MANASHA MANDIR
P.O. AND P.S.- GARCHUK
GUWAHATI
PIN-781035
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
STATEFED BUILDING
GMC HOSPITAL ROAD
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-781005
2:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
STATEFED BUILDING
GMC HOSPITAL ROAD
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-781005
3:THE CHAIRMAN
GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
THIRD FLOOR
STATEFED BUILDING
GMC HOSPITAL ROAD
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI-781005
Page No.# 2/10
4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP (M)
LICHUBAGAN
HENGRABARI
GUWAHATI-781036
5:THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER
GUWAHATI MUNICIPALCORPORATION
GUWAHATI-781001.
6:THE ASSOCIATE PLANNER
GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
GUWAHATI-781001.
------------
Advocate for : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for : SC
G M D A appearing for THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY AND 3 ORS
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Advocate for the petitioner(s) : Mr D J Das
Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr P Nayak, Addl. A G.
Date of Judgment : 14.10.2025
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
(Rajesh Mazumdar, J.)
1. Heard Mr D J Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P
Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents. The
Page No.# 3/10
pleadings in this case have been completed with the respondents having filed their
affidavit in opposition and the petitioner having filed his reply. With the consent of the
parties, although the matter has been listed under Order (Stay Vacating), the entire
matter has been taken up for disposal at this stage.
2. The case projected by the writ petitioner is that the petitioner had purchased a plot
of land measuring 17 lechas under dag no. 670 (old)/(810) (New) situated at Village-
Fatasil under Beltola Mouza in the district of Kamrup (Metro), from one Sri Prabhat
Boro, resident of Kotabari, Gorchuk, Guwahati by way of an agreement on a stamp
paper. The petitioner, while buying the aforesaid plot of land did not know that the said
plot of land is a patta land and that another Dipak Baruah is the original owner of the
said plot of land. The petitioner further stated that due to an urgency on the part of the
petitioner and due to absence of residential premises, the petitioner, along with her
husband, had constructed an RCC Ground + 2 floor building on the aforesaid lot of land
in the year 2017. After completion of the construction the petitioner applied for
obtaining the "Holding number" and also for assessment for the purposes of taxes etc. in
the office of the Guwahati Municipal Corporation, Guwahati. Pursuant to such
assessment, the Guwahati Municipal Corporation allotted holding number 12072830 and
Assessment ID no. 06-80-12072830 against the building standing on the said plot of
land.
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that she was served with a show-case notice
dated 12th of June 2023, issued under the provisions of Sections 87 and 88 of the
Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1985. The notice was issued under
the hand and seal of the Chief Executive Officer, Guwahati Metropolitan Development
Authority, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner had constructed the RCC ground
plus two floor building and RCC toilet block over the said plot of land without any valid
permission from the competent authority. The petitioner had submitted her reply to the
Page No.# 4/10
show cause notice on 03.07.2023, where she had explained the entire circumstances
under which she acquired the same plot of land. The Chief Executive Officer, GMDA,
thereafter, issued the impugned order dated 13th of July 2023, upon the petitioner,
directing the petitioner to demolish the RCC ground plus two floors building and the
RCC toilet constructed at House No. GMC/21, Naban Borough Port, near Manasa
Mandir, Gorchuk. On 20-7-2023, the petitioner filed a representation praying for
opportunity and reasonable time to take necessary steps to obtain the permission and
arrange to regularize the construction of the RCC Ground Plus Two floors building. The
Petitioner alleges that the representation had not been disposed of and, therefore, she has
approached this court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to obtain an appropriate relief to the petitioner. The petitioner has
prayed for setting aside of the order dated 13.7.2023 issued by the Chief Executive
Officer, Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority and for directing the
respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in terms of the order
dated 13.7.2023, till the petitioner obtains the required permission or approval for
regularizing her building.
4. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner had filed an additional affidavit
on 16th of August 2023, to bring on record the copy of a letter dated 26.7.2023 issued by
the Associate Planner of Guwahati Municipal Corporation requiring the petitioner to
provide copies of No Objection certificate, approved plan and occupancy certificate of
the building in question.
5. While issuing notice on 21.07.2023, this Court had directed that no coercive steps
shall be taken in respect of the construction of the petitioner, considering the fact that the
petitioner had submitted a representation seeking some additional time pursuant to the
orders passed on 13.7.2025. The Chief Executive Officer, GMDA was given the liberty
to pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner on
Page No.# 5/10
20.7.2023.
6. The respondents in the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority have filed
their affidavit-in- opposition, where a very specific stand has been taken that the G-plus
two storied building constructed by the petitioner on the plot of land was wholly
unauthorized, without any valid permission from any competent authority. The
respondents submitted that the notice dated 22.06.2023 and the order dated 13.7.2023
are not liable to be interfered with by this Court as the same are lawful. The affidavit
further states that the representation filed by the petitioner to the Chairman, GMDA on
20.7.2023 was found to be not acceptable and had been disposed of by order dated
31.10.2023. The respondents assert that the petitioner had constructed G + 2 floors
building without obtaining any valid permission for such construction as required under
the law, and therefore, no part of the building can be regularized since it is a wholly
unauthorised and illegal construction.
7. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner asserted
since the petitioner had no other place to live, the RCC building had been constructed on
the plot of land over which she had acquired possessory right. The fact that the
Guwahati Municipality Corporation had assessed her building and had issued a holding
number was also stressed to emphasize that the respondents could have allowed
regularization of the construction rather than seek demolition of the same. The learned
counsel for the petitioner stressed that, when they rejected the representation of the
petitioner, the fact that the building adheres to the norms of the Guwahati Municipal
Corporation and Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority and the fact that the
petitioner had been paying Khazana against the said plot of land and was also paying the
requisite taxes against the RCC building were ignored by the respondent authorities. It
is relevant to note here that during pendency of this petition, the actual owner of the plot
of land namely, Sri Dipak Kumar Baruah had initiated a process to sell the plot of land
Page No.# 6/10
in favour of the husband of the petitioner and in furtherance of such intention, Sri Dipak
Kumar Baruah had applied for sale permission in favour of the husband of petitioner. An
"application acknowledgement" was issued in favour of Sri Dipak Kumar Baruah on
25.3.2025, stating that application for composite land sale transfer had been submitted
successfully before the Land and Revenue Department. The District Commissioner,
Kamrup Mohanagar, issued the NOC for sale of the concerned land on 05.06.2025. The
Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority had also issued a certificate on
23.07.2025 in favour of Sri Dipak Kumar Baruah expressing their no objection to the
transfer of the plot of land measuring 15 lecha to the husband of the applicant. When
the husband of the petitioner had thereafter approached the office of the Sub Registrar
Kamrup(Metro) for execution of the sale of the plot of land in question, the Sub-
Registrar had refused to register the execution of the sale of the plot of land in question
on the ground that the Chief Executive Officer GMDA had issued a letter dated
02.08.2025, to the District Commissioner, stating that the No-Objection Certificate
pertaining to the sale proposed by Mr Dipak Kumar Baruah to Sri Kuldeep Das was
issued on the basis of the NOC provided by the office of the then Deputy Commissioner,
Kamrup (Metro). However, the GMDA had overlooked that the said property comprised
of an RCC building which was unauthorized and that there was a pending litigation
involving the structure. It was further stated that the application for land sale permission
was filed on behalf of Mr Dipak Kumar Baruah and, therefore, the GMDA authorities
had failed to trace the associated complications regarding the unauthorized construction
etc.. It was thus, communicated that, to maintain procedural integrity and regulatory
compliance, the land sale permission granted earlier by GMDA vide
GMDA/LSP/1333/23062025 dated Wed, July 23, 2025, stood cancelled until further
orders. The writ petitioner had, thereafter, filed IA(Civil) No. 2769 of 2025, praying for
directions to the respondents to allow execution of the sale of the plot in question, by
setting aside the impugned letter dated 02.08.2025.
Page No.# 7/10
8. Heard Mr D J Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr P
Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.
9. Mr Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the land in
issue was purchased by the petitioner under a misconception of ownership and that on
coming to know of the same, immediate steps were taken to effectuate proper, legal and
lawful transfer of ownership of the premises. The actual owner of the land was also
ready to sell the plot of land to the petitioner and/or her husband and for that purpose, he
had also initiated appropriate steps by applying for the sale permission. The learned
counsel had thereafter submitted that the since the land in issue was bought for the
purpose of residence, the petitioner had constructed the house. The learned counsel
further submits that the entire structure is within the norms laid down and there can be
no reason for the respondents to refuse to regularise the building, more so when the said
building has been allotted holding number and has also been assessed for the purpose of
the taxes etc. The learned counsel has further submitted that the respondent in the
GMDA ought not to have objected for the proposed sale of the plot of land in favour of
the petitioner only on the ground that a litigation was pending, since such litigations was
not on the issue of sale -purchase of the land but was regarding the directions for
demolition of the building standing thereon. The learned counsel has further submitted
that unless the petitioner is allowed to acquire legal possession of the said plot of land by
way of purchase from the actual owner, she will not be able to pursue her cause for
regularisation of the building constructed thereon. He has submitted that it would be in
the interests of justice to allow the petitioner to acquire the plot of land from its original
owner so that appropriate steps can be initiated for regularisation of the construction
made thereon. He prays that the relief sought for in the writ petition and the
interlocutory applications if granted would serve the purposes of justice and therefore
deserve to be allowed. The learned counsel has referred to the judgment and order dated
23rd of November, 2003 passed in Kula Prasad Gogoi vs. State of Assam and others,
Page No.# 8/10
reported in 2008 (1) GLT 98, to stress that this Hon'ble Court had held that when the
petitioner had been paying taxes for the unauthorized construction and when the
construction was in the knowledge of the authorities, there could be no reason to declare
the building to be illegal rendering the same liable for demolition only because there was
no approved plan and necessary permission at the time of construction. He has submitted
that in the said case, it was ordered that the deviated part of the petitioner's building was
only liable to be demolished, instead of the whole building. In the present case, the
learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that there is no deviation from the norms laid
down by the authorities for construction of the building and, therefore, the order
requiring demolition of the building deserves interference of this Court.
10. Mr. P Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General has resisted the prayers made
in the writ petition and in the connected interlocutory applications. The learned counsel
has submitted that the petitioner is admittedly not the owner of the aforesaid plot of land
since he has not yet acquired the same from the admitted actual owner. The learned
counsel has submitted that the representation made to the Chairman of the GMDA, has
been rejected way back on 31.10.2023. The learned counsel has further submitted that it
is an admitted position that the entire building has been constructed without even
applying for permission to construct the building and, therefore, there is no question of
there being an approved plan for the building on the basis of which deviations in the
construction can be assessed. He submits that this is not a situation where there is any
deviation from the permission granted, but it is a case where a wholly unauthorized
construction has been created by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents
has placed reliance on the judgment and order dated 30th of April, 2025, passed by the
Apex Court in the matter of Kaniz Ahmed -Vs- Sabuddin & Others; reported in 2025
INSC 610, to stress that a person who has no regard for the law cannot be permitted to
pray for regularization, after putting up unauthorized construction of two floors. He has
submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that a strict approach must be
Page No.# 9/10
adopted while dealing with cases of illegal construction and judicial interference
facilitating regularization of buildings erected without requisite permission from the
competent authority is not the call of the day. He has submitted that the Hon'ble Apex
Court had refused the prayer made in the aforesaid case for being permitted even one
chance to pray for regularization of the unauthorized construction and he has further
submitted that the present case deserves to meet the same fate.
11. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been considered
by this Court. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner is yet to acquire
legal and lawful possession of the plot of land in issue, the building constructed on the
said plot of land was brought into existence without even applying for permission to
construct the building and the prayers made by the petitioner have been rejected by the
competent authority after due consideration of the grounds raised by the petitioner. The
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the construction made by
the petitioner deserves to be regularized in the event the same adheres to the norms laid
down by the respondent authorities, cannot be accepted by this Court for the simple
reason that a litigant cannot be heard to say that although an act is illegal, it may be
regularized as it has already been committed. Such proposition that illegal acts can be
regularized, if accepted, may lead to preposterous consequences. The judgment and
order passed by the Apex Court in Kaniz Ahmed (supra) has dealt with this issue and
come to a specific observation that judicial discretion would be guided by expediency
and justice is to be rendered in accordance with law. It is a settled position in law that
while irregularities may be regularized, illegality cannot be so done. The admitted
position by the writ petitioner being that the building was constructed without even
applying for permission, this Court has to reject the reliance placed on behalf of the
petitioner on the judgment and order passed in Kula Prasad Gogoi (supra). In the said
case, there was a deviation from the approved building plan, where an additional floor
has been constructed beyond the permission given, but in the present case, the entire
Page No.# 10/10
building is without permission.
12. The end result of the foregoing discussions is that the prayers of the petitioner
cannot be acceded to by this Court and the impugned decision of the respondents to
direct the petitioner to demolish the unauthorized construction does not require any
interference. It is, however, observed that the petitioner has stated that this is her sole
residential premise. In such view of the matter, the petitioner would be at liberty to
approach the concerned authorities for being allowed a reasonable amount of time, in
which event, the respondent authorities would be expected to consider the same
judiciously.
13. The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed.
14. No cost(s).
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
