W.A. No. 27 of 2014. Case: Himangshu Paul Choudhury Vs State of Assam. Guwahati High Court
| Case Number | W.A. No. 27 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: S.S. Dey, D. Chakraborty and M.C. Dutta, Advocates and For Respondents: G.A. |
| Judges | Abhay Manohar Sapre, C.J. and Ujjal Bhuyan, J. |
| Issue | Other Law |
| Citation | 2014 (3) GLT 578 |
| Judgement Date | February 03, 2014 |
| Court | Guwahati High Court |
Judgment:
Abhay Manohar Sapre, C.J.
-
This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of WP (C) 7379/2013 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in abovementioned writ petition. By impugned order, the Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition and declined to grant any relief to the appellant.
-
So the question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether learned Single judge (writ court) was justified in dismissing the appellant's writ petition?
-
Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They however need mention in brief to appreciate the controversy involved in the writ and now in this appeal.
-
The appellant claims to be the owner of the building situated at Link Road, Lane no. 1/A Silchar. According to him, he constructed this building after obtaining due sanction on 7.5.2010 from Municipal Board. However, three complaints were filed by three different persons to the Chairman-Silchar Municipal Board (respondent herein) complaining therein that the appellant had constructed the building contrary to and in violation of the sanction map read with the Rules/Regulations applicable for construction of building and hence such illegal portion of the building should be demolished. These complaints were entertained by the Chairman and accordingly appellant was noticed. He filed reply and contested the complaint. The inquiry was accordingly held by visiting the disputed building in question with a view to find out as to whether any construction was made by the appellant contrary to and in violation of the sanctioned plan and if so to what extent? The Chairman then gave opportunity to the parties and by order dated 30.11.2013 (annexure-A) recorded the finding that appellant had made some portion in the building contrary to and in violation of the sanctioned map read with the relevant Rules/Regulations and therefore such portion in the building which was unauthorized and constructed contrary to and in violation of the sanctioned map/Rules/Regulations has to be demolished. The Chairman accordingly directed removal/demolition of such portion as specified in the order.
-
This is what was held and directed by the Chairman in the concluding Para of his order.
I have heard the submission of all the parties. However, as per the desire of the O.P. and to ensure justice a further enquiry was made on the field through the Asstt. Engineer and Junior...
To continue reading
Request your trial