Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010227012016 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/611/2016 ASOM RAJYIK GRIHA NIRMAN PARISHAD ASOM ARHIR ABASHIK SANTHA and ANR. A REGISTERED SOCIETY HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT SAKUNTALA PUKHURI, NABAGRAH, KHARGHULI PAHAR, DIST. KAMRUP M, GUWAHATI- 781003, ASSAM. 2: DHIRESWAR DEKA S/O LT. MUKUNDA DEKA JAPORI NAGAR HOUSING COLONY DIST. KAMRUP M GUWAHATI- 781003 ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, ASSAM. 2:ASSAM STATE HOUSING BOARD R.G. BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI -5. 3:THE COMMISSIONER ASSAM STATE HOUSING BOARD R.G. BARUAH ROAD GUWAHATI-5. 4:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GUWAHATI -6. 5:SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI -6. 6:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD BUILDING CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3 ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M SMITH, MRS.R BORBORA,MS.M DUTTA,MR.A C BORBORA Advocate for the Respondent : MRS.V L SINGH, MS. M BARMAN,SC, HOUSING BOARD,SC, PWD,MR.Y S MANNAN,MR.S BARUAH,MR.N UPADHAYA,GA, ASSAM,SC, FINANCE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER 04.08.2025 Heard Shri M. Smith, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri N. Das, learned State Counsel as well as Shri T.R. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Assam State Housing Board. 2. Though as regards the issue of exchange of pleadings, Shri Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the brief which he is holding contains copy of an affidavit filed in May 2019, the same is however not with the Court records. Be that as it may, as per the facts projected, the petitioner no. 1 is a society consisting of members who were allotted houses under the Slum Clearance Scheme in the Kharghuli Hills, Guwahati by the Assam State Housing Board. The said allotment was done about three decades back and there was no maintenance. The petitioners had accordingly approached the authorities for granting ownership of the premises including the land, which was however not Page No.# 3/3 acted upon. 3. This Court vide order dated 05.02.2016, had issued notice. It however appears that when the matter was listed thereafter on 12.04.2019 and 11.01.2021, there were no representations on behalf of the petitioners. 4. Shri Smith, the learned counsel for the petitioners, who is present today, has submitted that there is no instruction from the clients. This Court has also noticed that on the previous occasion i.e., on 28.04.2025, a similar submission was made. 5. Though the petitioners have prayed for a direction to the authorities to consider grant of ownership, no legal right in support of such claim has been able to be demonstrated. Granting of ownership of the land is ultimately the prerogative of the Government, which is to be done by following the due process of law. 6. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that since the claim has not been able to be related to any enforceable legal right, no relief as such can be granted. It is however left open for the Government to consider the prayer of the petitioners, if so made, which however is to be done strictly in accordance with the law. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant