Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010289442023 2025:GAU-AS:14074 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7562/2023 JUGAL KISHOR PAREEK AND ANR. S/O- LATE SAHANKAR LAL PAREEK, R/O- T.R. PHUKAN ROAD, WARD NO. 2, P.O. AND P.S.- DHUBRI, ASSAM- 783301. 2: KRISHNA PAREEK W/O- JUGAL KISHOR PAREEK R/O- T.R. PHUKAN ROAD WARD NO. 2 P.O. AND P.S.- DHUBRI ASSAM- 783301 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY- THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS, AND DIRECTORATE OF TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE DHUBRI MUNICIPAL BOARD REPRESENTED BY- CHAIRMAN/ EXECUTIVE OFFICER DHUBRI ASSAM- 783301. 3:THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER DHUBRI MUNICIPAL BOARD Page No.# 2/7 DHUBRI ASSAM- 783301. 4:ASSISTANT ENGINEER DHUBRI MUNICIPAL BOARD DHUBRI ASSAM- 783301. 5:SHRI JIBAN KRISHNA KUNDU ABOUT 85 YEARS SON OF LATE G.C. KUNDU R/O 1ST FLOOR T.R. PHUKAN ROAD OPP. INCOME TAX OFFICE WARD NO. 2 PO AND DISTRICT-DHUBRI ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SAHU, MS A ROY,MR. T BHARALI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. P S BHATTACHARYYA(R-3),MS K SARMA (R 5),MS K BHATTACHARYYA (R 5),MR H K SARMA (R 5),MR M SAHEWALLA (R 5),MR G N SAHEWALLA (R 5),MR. P S BHATTACHARYYA (R-2,3,4) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 23-10-2025 Heard Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. S. Roy, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1, Mr. P. S. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. 2. The grievance raised in this writ petition is against the order dated Page No.# 3/7 03.04.2023, issued by the respondent no. 3 directing the petitioners to stop renovation work on a flat at the First Floor of a G+2 RCC building measuring about 2.55 Lechas, covered by Patta No. 741, Dag no. 1955 of revenue village Dhubri Town Khash Mahal, Mouza-Dhubri. 3. The petitioners asserts that they had brought the said First Floor of the RCC building from one Amitabha Acharjee, son of Swapan Kumar Acharjee vide registered Sale Deed no. 3103 dated 02.09.2022 and he had to avail a bank loan for buying the said property. To the knowledge of the petitioner, Shri. Amitabha Acharjee had purchased the flat from its original owner Jiban Krishna Kundu vide registered Sale Deed No. 255 dated 08.02.2016. 4. Since the flat was more than 20 years old, the petitioners started some renovation works on the property which included wall plastering and also replacing the wooden frames of the doors and windows. The petitioners had made an application on 28.12.2022 to the Chairman/Executive Officer of Dhubri Municipal Board, Dhubri requesting for permission to renovate the building within the existing floor area. However, the Municipal Board by the communication dated 03.04.2023 had directed the petitioners to submit the building permission and the relevant documents to the Municipal Board within 3 (three) days and the petitioners were also directed to stop the renovation works. Thereafter, the petitioners have made 2 (two) representations; one which was received by Municipal Board on 07.04.2023 and the second which was received by the Municipal Board on 15.06.2023. When the permission for carrying out the renovation work was not forthcoming, the petitioners approached this Court. Page No.# 4/7 5. Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in accordance with the prevalent law in the Assam Gazette notification which has been referred to in the writ petition, there is no requirement of seeking permission from the Municipal Board for carrying out repairs or minor renovation in existing buildings and, therefore, the respondents have acted without responsibility when they did not take note of the representations made by the petitioners and also did not allow them to carry on with the renovation. 6. Mr. P. S. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Board has submitted that the contentions raised in the writ petition are without substance, inasmuchas, under the Section IV Chapter 2 of the Assam Unified Building Construction (Regulation) Bye Laws, 2022, the occupants of the building are required to seek permission before renovation or construction in the existing building. The learned counsel has also submitted that as per the records, the right title and interest of Shri. Amitabha Acharjee who had sold the land to the petitioners herein, is itself in doubt since the sale deed purportedly executed by the original owner Jiban Krishna Kundu could not be traced out in the Office of the Senior Sub-Registrar, Dhubri. It is relevant to take note here that Shri. Jiban Krishna Kundu has been impleaded as respondent no. 5 in the writ petition and has filed the affidavit-in-opposition where the said respondent has denied executing the sale deed in favour of Shri. Amitabha Acharjee with regard to the building in question. 7. It is the submission of Mr. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel that records in fact show that no proper permission for sale of the alleged Page No.# 5/7 building with proportionate share of land is traceable and the sale permission which has been referred to in the purported sale deed executed in favour of Shri. Amitabha Acharjee is in fact a sale permission granted to sell the land in favour of some other person and relating to some other land. 8. Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel has submitted that since the sale deed in his favour executed by Shri. Amitabha Acharjee is not at all in dispute, there is a presumption of lawful and legal possession of the property, and this question cannot now be raised by any of the respondents to deny him the right to carry out renovation/extensions of the building, if permitted by law. 9. We have considered the submission made on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties. 10. Without going into the disputes raised by the learned counsel for the parties with regard to the ownership and possession of the property involved in this writ petition, we notice that the prayers made in the writ petition are to the extent that the notice dated 03.04.2023 be set aside by this Court and the respondents be directed to dispose of the representations of the petitioners for renovation and repairing as per the provisions of Assam Notified Urban Areas (Other than Guwahati) Building Rules, 2014. 11. This Court also noticed that Shri. Amitabha Acharjee from whom the petitioner has acquired the property has approached the Civil Court against the respondent no. 5 herein. In exercise of powers conferred on Page No.# 6/7 this Court by Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not be in a position to decide the disputes raised by the contesting parties with regard to the right title and interest over the property in issue. However, since the prayers in this writ petition is to the extent that the respondents be directed to allow the petitioners to carry out the renovation work, this Court disposes of this writ petition by directing the respondents to take into account the representations filed by the petitioners for renovation of the premises which is now in their possession and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 12. At this stage, Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel has submitted that the respondent no. 5 has also submitted a representation to the Municipal Board with regard to the same premise. 13. The Municipal Board while deciding the representation filed by the petitioners and the respondent no. 5, shall hear both the parties and pass necessary orders, either allowing or rejecting the representations of the petitioners and the respondent no. 5 herein. 14. Mr. S. Sahu, learned counsel has raised an apprehension that while disposing of the representations, the Municipal Board may attempt to decide the right title and interest over the premises in issue. It is clarified that the right title and interest over a certain piece of immovable property can only be done by the appropriate forum, and the Municipal Board in the present situation will only be required to decide as to whether the petitioners can be allowed to carry out renovation work without causing any prejudice to the contesting parties. Page No.# 7/7 15. The writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant