Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010006442025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/146/2025 PRANATI KHAUND W/O LATE BHUPEN CHANDRA KHAUND, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 21, LAKHIMI NAGAR PATH, HATIGAON, GUWAHATI ASSAM 781006 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, GUWAHATI DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM GUWAHATI DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 3:GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER GANESH MANDIR DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 4:THE COMMISSIONER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION GANESH MANDIR DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 5:DR. AMAL KUMAR BORPUJARI PROPRIETOR OF M/S A.B CONSTRUCTION AND HOUSING AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS Page No.# 2/4 SON OF LATE DURGESWAWR BORPUJARI RESIDENT OF BISHNUJYOTI PATH HATIGAON GUWAHATI ASSAM 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R B PHOOKAN, MR K J HAZARIKA,MS M KAKOTY,R SARMAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, GMC, SC, GDD BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER Date : 10.01.2025 Heard Mr. R.B. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Borah, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC). The petitioner before this court is aggrieved by the demolition notice dated 30.11.2024 issued to proforma respondent No.5 who is the builder of the property including the apartment in which the petitioner owns 2 (two) no. of apartments. The temporary fencing was made by the late husband of the petitioner separating the petitioner’s property with that of the land owner’s/builder’s portion. Subsequently, the petitioner came to be informed by the impugned notice dated 30.11.2024 issued by the Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) authorities, notice under Section 337 (3) of the Guwahati Municipal Act (GMC) Act, 1971 was issued to the proforma respondent No. 5 to remove these unauthorized constructions as was not a part of the original approved land. On being made aware, it is noticed that the petitioner’s counsel issued a Page No.# 3/4 representation on behalf of the petitioner requesting for service of notice on the petitioner as well being the owner of the said flats and as the fencing was stated to have been constructed by the late husband of the petitioner. However, inspite of the representation being filed, there was no response from the GMC authorities and to the best of the knowledge of the petitioner, it is submitted that the GMC authorities are proceeding for demolition of the fencing in terms of the notice dated 30.11.2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the GMC authorities ought not to have proceeded with the notice without affording an opportunity of hearing to the owner of the flat/apartments and more particularly when the temporary fencing was constructed by her late husband with full knowledge of persons concerned. Under such circumstances the present writ petition has been filed and praying for an adequate interim orders. Mr. S. Borah, learned Standing Counsel appearing for GMC fairly submits that the petitioner can also been given an opportunity of being heard to represent in her case. In view of such submissions made by the counsel at the bar, let the petitioner appears before the Commissioner, GMC and place her objections along with all necessary documents in support of her claim and upon a proper hearing, the authorities will thereafter pass appropriate orders in this matter. Till such time the hearing is conducted and subsequent order as contemplated under Section 337 (3) is passed by the GMC authorities in view of the order dated 30.11.2024 shall kept in abeyance. The petitioner will appear before the GMC authorities and file appropriate representation within 10 days from today. Page No.# 4/4 The writ petition is stands closed in terms of the above direction at the motion stage without issuing notice. JUDGE Comparing Assistant