Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010175142026 2026:GAU-AS:11788 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4439/2026 PADMA KALITA SON OF LATE NIVERSHA KALITA, RESIDENT OF SIX MILE, ANANDA NAGAR PATH, KHANAPARA, HOUSE NO. 59, GUWAHATI-781022, DISTRICT- KAMRUP METROPOLITAN, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY GUWAHATI REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION GUWAHATI 3:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY GUWAHATI 4:THE SECRETARY GUWAHATI MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY GUWAHATI 5:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KAMRUP METROPOLITAN ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS FIZA BEGUM, T SARKAR Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, MUNICIPAL ADMIN. DEPT.,SC, GMC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER 18.08.2026 Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. T. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. N. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1 & 5; and Ms. A. Borthakur, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, GMDA for the respondent nos. 2, 3 & 4. 2. Mr. Banik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had earlier received a notice dated 06.07.2017 under Sections 87 and 88 of the GMDA Act, 1985 from the respondent GMDA authorities with regard to an alleged unauthorized portion of a Brick boundary wall he had constructed around his plot of land at Ananda Nagar Path, Six Mile, Guwahati. The notice was followed by an Order dated 11.08.2017 directing demolition of the unauthorized portion of the boundary wall. Against the Order dated 11.08.2017, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 73 of the GMDA Act before the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati and the said appeal was registered and numbered as Misc. Appeal no. 14/2018. The appeal was taken up for disposal by the Court of learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kamrup [M], Guwahati. By a Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2024, the appeal came to be dismissed. After dismissal of the appeal, by a Notice dated 30.08.2025 issued under the hand of the Chief Executive Officer, GMDA, the petitioner was put to notice to remove the alleged unauthorized portion of a RCC building and for removal of a portion of boundary wall, constructed allegedly in violation of the GMDA Act, 1985 and Building Bye-Laws. Recently, an Order dated 11.08.2026 has been passed by the Chief Executive Officer, GMDA to carry out demolition of the unauthorized part of the boundary wall in the plot of land of the petitioner. By the said Order, it has been ordered for demolition of the brick wall at 11-00 a.m. on 19.08.2026. Page No.# 3/5 3. Mr. Banik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that earlier, when after issuance of notices alleging violation of the provisions of the GMDA Act and the Building Bye-Laws by the petitioner in constructing the boundary wall and the RCC Building, Orders were passed separately by the Chief Executive Officer, GMDA under Section 88 of the GMDA Act, the petitioner preferred two appeals under Section 73 of the GMDA Act before the Court of the Additional District Judge No. 1, Kamrup [M], Guwahati as the appellate authority. Those two appeals, preferred one after another, were registered as Misc. Appeal no. 13/2018 and Misc. Appeal no. 14/2018. A Judgment in Misc. Appeal no. 13/2018 was delivered on 16.05.2024 in relation to alleged unauthorized construction of the RCC Building whereas the Judgment in Misc. Appeal no. 14/2018 was delivered on 30.03.2024 in relation to the alleged unauthorized construction of brick boundary wall. The learned Court of Additional District Judge no. 1, Kamrup [M], Guwahati decided the appeal, Misc. Appeal no. 13/2018 on the premise that he had the authority and jurisdiction to decide the appeal. But, the same Court in the Judgment dated 30.03.2024 rendered in Misc. Appeal no. 14/2018, had erred in observing that he had no authority and jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. 4. Mr. Banik, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that while rendering the Judgment dated 30.03.2024, the learned Court had relied upon a Notification bearing no. MA.133/92/7 dated 11.02.1994 of the Municipal Administration Department, Government of Assam. He has submitted that by a subsequent Notification bearing no. GDD.49/94/Pt./44 dated 22.08.1996 of the Guwahati Development Department, Government of Assam, the earlier Notification bearing no. MA.133/92/7 dated 11.02.1994 was cancelled. He has pointed out that in the Notification dated 11.02.1994, the Assam Board of Revenue was mentioned as the appellate authority under the GMDA Act. In the subsequent Notification dated 22.08.1996, the District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati had been notified as the appellate authority. Meaning thereby, on the date of deciding the appeal, Misc. Appeal no. 14/2018, the District and Sessions Judge, Kamrup [M], Guwahati was the appellate authority whereas the learned Court had observed that the appeal ought to have been filed before the Assam Board of Revenue. Page No.# 4/5 5. With the above submissions, Mr. Banik has submitted that the petitioner ought to have approached the appellate authority, in the face of two conflicting Judgments rendered in Misc. Appeal no. 13/2018 and Misc. Appeal no. 14/2018, seeking review of the Judgment dated 30.03.2024. Fairly admitting that there is an element of delay on the part of the petitioner, Mr. Banik has submitted that the petitioner now wants to approach the appropriate forum for review of the Judgment dated 30.03.2024 rendered in Misc. Appeal no. 14/2018. As the petitioner is facing the imminent threat of demolition which has been ordered to be carried out tomorrow [19.08.2026], he has beseeched for deferment of the demolition process by a period of ten days in order to enable the petitioner to avail an opportunity of approaching the appellate authority to seek appropriate relief including interim relief, as permissible under the law. 6. Having considered the matter in its entirety, it appears that there is some force in the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner regarding the non- exercise of authority and jurisdiction on the part of the appellate authority appointed to hear appeals under the provisions of the GMDA Act vested in it, while deciding Misc. Appeal no. 14/2018. 7. Having regard to the fact that there is an Order for carrying out demolition of the boundary wall tomorrow [19.08.2026] and the petitioner is seeking to exhaust the legal remedy, as available under the law, this Court is of the considered view, to balance the equities, that the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent GMDA authorities to defer the process of demolition, as contemplated by the Order dated 11.08.2026, by a period of ten days, so as to enable the petitioner to exhaust legal remedy, if any, as available to him under the law, before the appellate authority and to seek relief against the order of demolition. It is accordingly ordered. 8. While disposing of the writ petition, it is made clear that none of the observations made hereinabove shall be construed as observations made by this Court on merits on the claims of any of the sides. Page No.# 5/5 9. Ms. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent GMDA authorities shall communicate a copy of this order to the competent authority in the GMDA authorities. JUDGE Comparing Assistant