Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010116892019 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2124/2025 SRI GOPAL BORO S/O LATE NAZIR BORO RESIDENT OF MANISHA AVENUE RUKMINIGAON FLAT NO. 103 2ND FLAT G S ROAD GUWAHATI 22 PO AND PS DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM VERSUS PREMJIT SARMA AND ORS S/O LATE PRAFULLA CHANDRA SARMA DIRECTOR M/S MANISHA BUILD AND TRADE PVT. LTD. RESIDENT OF 11 MUKUNDA PATH RUKMINIGAON GUWAHATI-22 P.O. AND P.S. DISPUR KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GUWAHATI DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (GMDA) REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN GMDA STATEFED BUILDING Page No.# 2/3 BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-5. 4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY STATEFED BUILDING BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI-5. 5:JEUTI DAS W/O SRI SATYAJIT BHUYAN R/O FLAT NO. 201 MANISHA AVENUE RUKMINIGAON GUWAHATI-22 P.O. AND P.S. DISPUR DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR A K CHAUDHURY Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for PREMJIT SARMA AND ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 15.05.2026 Heard Mr. A. K. Chaudhury, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. R. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1; Mr. N. Das, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2; Mr. S. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Mr. G. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5. By way of this intelocutory application, the applicant, i.e., Sri Gopal Boro, is seeking his impleadment, as respondent in the connected writ petition being WP(C) No. 3455/2019. Page No.# 3/3 The applicant is the land owner of the land in which the petitioner has developed the land by virtue of his agreement with the land owner. The issue involved in the writ petition is as regards the demolition of the aforesaid construction constructed by the promoter/petitioner on the ground of alleged deviation as raised by GMDA. In view of the aforesaid, though the presence of the applicant may not be necessary for maintaining the writ petition; however, his presence appears to be proper and essential for effective and full adjudication of the connected writ petition. Accordingly, the interlocutory application stands allowed. Resultantly, the applicant, i.e., Sri Gopal Boro, be impleaded as respondent No. 4 in the connected writ petition. Let an amended cause title be submitted before the Registry for doing the needful. JUDGE Comparing Assistant