GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON SHEIKH NOOR ISLAM V/S THE GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND 4 ORS.

GUWAHATI, India, Jan. 14 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Dec. 15:

1. Heard Mr. B Kaushik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the writ petition as well as in the contempt proceedings. I have also heard Mr. WR Medhi, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the private respondent in both the writ petition as well as in the contempt proceedings and Mr. S Bora, the learned Standing Counsel, who represents the GMDA.

2. The petitioner and the private respondents are both brothers and there are inter-se disputes between them as regards the plot of land, wherein the private respondent had constructed two RCC buildings.

3. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the private respondent had constructed buildings or parts thereof on the basis of a no-objection certificate fraudulently obtained and this aspect was duly noted by this Court in the earlier proceedings and on the basis thereof even the Chief Executive Officer of the GMDA had issued an order dated 04.06.2018.

4. The further grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that inspite the order dated 04.06.2018, the GMDA authorities have not taken steps for demolition of the buildings of the private respondent and it is under such circumstances, the writ petition was filed.

5. The record further reveals that on the date on which the writ petition was moved, this Court issued notice and further directed that till the returnable date, no further construction shall be carried out in the building by the private respondent.

6. It is relevant to take note of that in the order dated 12.10.2018, there was no returnable date fixed and in fact the notice was issued by making it returnable by four weeks. Additionally the order was passed ex-parte against the private respondent.

7. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take note of as to why the contempt proceedings was initiated. This Court while issuing the notice in the writ petition on 12.10.2018 directed that the further construction of the building of the respondent No.5 shall not be permitted. In view of the said order, on the basis of the allegations that the respondent No.5 had carried out the construction, the contempt proceedings has been initiated.

8. In the said contempt petition, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the private respondent, wherein the private respondent had claimed that he had right over the land in question and there are disputes between the petitioner and the private respondent for which the private respondent had filed the suit which was dismissed and thereupon a Regular Second Appeal was pending before this Court.

9. It is further relevant to take note of that during the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the said Regular Second Appeal being RSA No.65/2013 was dismissed by this Court vide the order dated 13.02.2025.

10. This Court had heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xxhmqZ11aX7oUJJe5NuGTqnu%2BlrlNc3Dwgc1IKZEefrj&caseno=WP(C)/4272/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010163682025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.