RSA 71/2014. Gauhati High Court

Case NumberRSA 71/2014
Judgement DateMarch 18, 2015
CourtGauhati High Court

I N THE GAUHATI HI GH COURT

(THE HI GH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MI ZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

R.S.A.No.71 OF 2014

Alhaj Mujibur Rahman Laskar Son of late Matasin Ali Laskar R/ o Hailakandi Town Ward No.I V Holding No.108/ 92

P.S. & District- Hailakandi,Assam.

-Vs-

  1. Surajit Das Gupta

    Son of late Dubudh Das Gupta R/ o Hailakandi Town Ward No.I V P.S. & District- Hailakandi,Assam.

  2. Hailakandi Municipal Board Represented by its Chairman

    P.S. & District- Hailakandi,Assam.

    BEFORE

    HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE MANOJI T BHUYAN

    For the Appellant - Mr. M.H.Laskar , Advocate

    For the respondents - Mr.S.K.Ghosh,Advocate .

    Date of hearing - 18.3.2015

    Date of judgment - 18.3.2015

    JUDGMENT & ORDER ( Oral)

  3. Heard M.H.Laskar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.S.K.Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondents.

    ... Appellant

    … Respondents

  4. The appellant as plaintiff filed Title Suit No.15 of 2010 praying for a decree for removal of nuisance by dismantling the illegal and unauthorised RCC Latrine Tank constructed at the entrance of the homestead of the plaintiff as well as for compensation. The short facts leading to the filing of the suit is that the appellant/plaintiff is a resident of Hailakandi Town, Ward No.4 within the Hailakandi Municipal Board. The appellant’s neighbour i.e.defendant no.1 had dug pit adjacent to the only entrance path to the appellant/plaintiff’s residence with a view to construct an RCC Latrine Tank. To stop the process, the appellant/plaintiff filed the written complaint on 29.12.2009 before the defendant no.2 i.e. Hailakandi Municipal Board, followed by a notice under Section 326 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956. According to the appellant/plaintiff, by the time the said notice was issued, the construction of the RCC Latrine Tank had been completed. As no remedial action had been taken by the said defendant no.2, a polluting atmosphere was created. In such a circumstance, the appellant/plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit. The respondent/defendant nos. 1 and 2 filed individual written statements denying the averments made in the plaint and stating that the appellant/plaintiff is in no way affected by the construction of the said RCC Latrine Tank. According to respondent no.1, he had filed petition seeking permission for construction of the said RCC Latrine Tank and to that effect had also deposited Rs.1000/- in the Cash Branch of the Hailakandi Municipal Board and construction had commenced only after deposit of the said money. The respondent/defendant no.1 also averred that the other inhabitants had never objected to the construction. In so far as the respondent/defendant no. 2 is concerned, the statement and averments made in the plaint were denied while admitting the fact that although permission was applied for, the same was pending...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT