Htn Developers Private Limited vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 4 May, 2026

                                                               Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010028202024




                                                         2026:GAU-AS:6022

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

                         Case No. : WP(C)/795/2024

         HTN DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED
         A REGD.COMPANY HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AT ODALBAKRA,
         GUWAHATI-34, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR. DIGANTA BAISHYA,
         R/O- ODALBAKRA, SURUJ NAGAR, NEAR SHIVA MANDIR, H.NO-6,
         GUWAHATI-34,
         P.S- DISPUR, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM



         VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
         REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
         FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
         DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. ASSAM

         2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
         AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE
         ARANYA BHAWAN
          PANJABARI
          GUWAHATI- 37
         ASSAM.

         3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-6.

         4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
         TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          MINES AND MINERALS DEPARTMENT
          DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-6.
                                                                        Page No.# 2/7


              5:THE JOINT SECRETARY
              TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
               MINES AND MINERALS DEPARTMENT
               DISPUR
               GUWAHATI-6.

              6:THE COMMISSIONER

              GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

              PANBAZAR
               GUWAHATI-0

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY, MD. A KHAN

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, SC, MINES AND MINERALS GOVT OF ASSAM,SC,
HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS,SC, GMC




                                    BEFORE
                    HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI

                                        ORDER

Date : 04.05.2026 Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Forest Department and Ms. A. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, GMC, and Mr. S. S. Roy, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3.

2. By way of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner calls in question the legality and validity of the impugned communication dated 02.03.2023 issued by respondent No. 5, whereby the scope and operation of the Assam Page No.# 3/7

Minor Minerals Concessions (Amendment) Rules, 2021, published in the Assam Gazette (Extraordinary) on 07.10.2021, have been impermissibly expanded.

3. The core grievance of the petitioner is that the amendments carried out to the Assam Minor Minerals Concessions Rules, 2013 prescribe norms for payment of "Forest Royalty" by government departments, their agencies, and urban local bodies in respect of consumption of forest produce in contractual works executed through contractors. However, while implementing the said amendments, the respondent authorities, by way of the impugned communication, have sought to include private individuals and private agencies within the sweep of the said provisions.

4. According to the petitioner, such inclusion is wholly dehors the statutory framework and travels beyond the scope of the parent Rules as well as the amending Rules. The effect of such executive overreach is that the petitioner has been compelled to deposit forest royalty in advance as a precondition for consideration of her application for building permission/NOC, which is ex facie without authority of law.

5. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The petitioner derives her rights pursuant to a registered Deed of Development Agreement dated 09.05.2022 executed with Smti. Kiran Kutum, the admitted owner of the subject land measuring 1 (one) bigha, covered by Dag No. 184 (old)/953 (new) of K.P. Patta No. 135 (old)/1931 (new), situated at Village Hatigaon under Mouza Beltola in the district of Kamrup (Metro), Assam. An Irrevocable General Power of Attorney was also executed in Page No.# 4/7

favour of the petitioner.

6. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied for building permission before the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "GMDA") on 24.05.2023. The application was forwarded to respondent No. 6 on 01.06.2023, whereupon the petitioner was informed that payment of Forest Royalty @ 2% of the estimated project cost was a mandatory precondition for processing the application.

7. Upon consideration of the pleadings, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and the materials available on record, the short but significant issue that arises for determination is whether the amended Rules can be construed to extend to private individuals and agencies, thereby authorising urban local bodies to levy and recover royalty in respect of private construction activities.

8. The said issue, in the considered opinion of this Court, is no longer res integra. A coordinate Bench of this Court, in Amar Deka and Anr. v. State of Assam and Ors., in WP(C) No. 4085/2024, has authoritatively settled the controversy. The relevant extracts are reproduced herein below:

"19. In view of the above analysis, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the impugned communication dated 02.03.2023 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Mines and Mineral Department thereby stipulating that the amendments carried out by the Amending Rules would also apply to the private agencies is contrary to the Act of 1957 as well as the Rules of 2013 as amended by the Amending Rules. Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 02.03.2023 is set aside and quashed.

Page No.# 5/7

20. This Court further observes and declares that 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.

21. This Court, therefore, 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."

9. The aforesaid view has been reiterated by another coordinate Bench in Smti. Nanda Sarma v. State of Assam and Ors. , in WP(C) No. 5793/2023, wherein identical conclusions have been reached. The relevant extracts are reproduced herein below:

"18. In view of the above analysis, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the impugned communication dated 02.03.2023 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Mines and Mineral Department thereby stipulating that the amendments carried out by the Amending Rules would also apply to the private agencies is contrary to the Act of 1957 as well as the Rules of 2013 as amended by the Amending Rules. Accordingly, the impugned communication dated 02.03.2023 is set aside and quashed.

19. This Court further observes and declares that 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.

20. This Court, therefore, issues a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the GMC/GMDA not to insist upon payment of royalty from the petitioner as a condition for granting permission to construct or carrying out construction pursuant to the permission so granted."

10. In light of the above binding precedents, the position of law admits of no ambiguity. The attempt on the part of the respondent Page No.# 6/7

authorities to extend the applicability of the amended Rules to private individuals is clearly ultra vires the parent statute as well as the Rules framed thereunder. The impugned communication, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. More importantly, the insistence on payment of forest royalty as a precondition for grant of building permission amounts to imposition of an unauthorised levy, which lacks statutory sanction and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

11. This Court finds itself in respectful agreement with the view taken by the coordinate Benches. There is neither any distinguishing feature nor any compelling reason warranting a departure from the settled position.

12. Accordingly, it is held and declared that the respondents, including the GMC/GMDA, have no authority in law to insist upon payment of forest royalty from the petitioner in respect of private construction, nor can such payment be made a condition precedent for grant of building permission or for carrying out construction pursuant thereto.

13. Consequently, the impugned communication dated 02.03.2023, to the extent it seeks to apply the amended Rules to private individuals/agencies, stands quashed.

14. The respondents are directed not to insist upon payment of any such royalty from the petitioner and to process the petitioner's application for building permission strictly in accordance with law, without reference to the impugned demand.

Page No.# 7/7

15. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant