Page No. 1/4 GAHC010101842023 2026:GAU-AS:7323 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2621/2023 JYOTIRMOY DEY S/O- LATE BIBHUTI BHUSHAN DEY, RESIDENT OF SONARI TOWN, WARD NO. 3, P.O. AND P.S.- SONARI, DIST.- CHARAIDEO, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, ASSAM. 2:THE DIRECTOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM-6. 3:SONARI MUNICIPAL BOARD SONARI REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN SONARI MUNICIPAL BOARD SONARI CHARAIDEO ASSAM. 4:CHAIRMAN SONARI MUNICIPAL BOARD SONARI CHARAIDEO ASSAM Page No. 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M SAIKIA, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 25.05.2026 Heard Mr. M. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1 & 2. 2. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed an Order dated 06.05.2023 issued under the hand of the respondent no. 4 whereby the petitioner has been asked to demolish a Bamboo – Tin made house erected on a plot of land, covered by Dag no. 419 & Patta no. 53 [Kha], situate at Village – Dakshin Sonari Gaon, Sonari Revenue Circle and within Ward no. 4 of Sonari Municipal Board, District – Charaideo. Assam [‘the subject-plot’, for short]. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and the daughter of his elder brother, Pinkey Dey jointly purchased the subject-plot by way of a Registered Sale Deed no. 189 dated 22.02.1995 from its erstwhile owner. After registration of the Sale Deed, the names of the petitioner and Pinkey Dey stood incorporated in the Jamabandi [Record of Rights] pursuant to an Order dated 01.03.1996 passed by the Circle Officer, Sonari Revenue Circle in Mutation Case no. 149 of 1994-1995 and also in Chitha. In order to construct a permanent kacha house of the subject-plot, the petitioner sought permission from the respondent Sonari Municipal Board in the year 1995 itself and the respondent Municipal Board vide an Order dated 04.07.1995 granted permission to the petitioner to erect a permanent kacha house on the subject-plot by maintaining a distance of 6 feet from public drain, if any, and Government land, if any, and also, by maintaining a distance of 4/5 feet from the boundary of the subject- plot. 4. The petitioner has asserted that the petitioner constructed a permanent kacha house Page No. 3/4 in terms of the permission dated 04.07.1995 granted by the Municipal Board and he had been allotted a Holding number by the respondent Municipal Board, after assessment of house tax, etc. Accordingly, the petitioner has been paying the property taxes as regards the permanent kacha house, erected on the subject-plot, to the respondent Municipal Board regularly till March, 2023. The petitioner has stated that as the condition of the permanent kacha house deteriorated with efflux of time, the petitioner intended to construct a building on the subject- plot and for that purpose, he sought permission from his co-pattadar, Pinkey Dey. 5. In the interregnum, there was encroachment over an area two feet in the subject-plot by the neighbour of the petitioner, which resulted in reduction of the breath of the subject- plot from 19 feet to 17 feet. Though initially, the petitioner’s nephew expressed no objection to the petitioner’s seeking permission for construction of the building at the subject-plot, but, the nephew retreated from her earlier stand. Instead, the nephew submitted an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Charaideo seeking a direction to the respondent Sonari Municipal Board not to give building permission to the petitioner, prior to any partition of the subject-plot. 6. The petitioner has stated that it is in the afore-stated backdrop, the impugned Order had been passed by the Sonari Municipal Board. 7. As per Order dated 23.04.2026 of the Lawazima Court, notices were duly served upon the respondent no. 3 and the respondent no. 4. Despite service of notice, the respondent no. 3 and the respondent no. 4 have opted not to appear in the present proceeding. 8. By the impugned Order, the petitioner was directed to demolish the permanent kacha house on the ground that the petitioner had erected it without any previous permission from the respondent Municipal Board. A perusal of the impugned Order dated 06.05.2023 goes to indicate that the respondent no. 4 was informed by an Engineer of the Technical Department of the Board in that connection. It, thus, transpires that it is on the basis of such information, the respondent no. 4 had proceeded to issue the impugned Order dated 06.05.2023. Page No. 4/4 9. The impugned Order dated 06.05.2023 was not preceded by any notice to show cause. Any such order of demolition must be preceded by a show cause to afford a prior opportunity of being heard. A show cause notice must meet two requirements, firstly, the notice must indicate the precise case set up against the notice; and secondly, the noticee must be afforded an opportunity of being heard. The primary purpose behind a show cause notice is to make the noticee understand the precise case set up against him so that he gets an opportunity to rebut the same. 10. As the petitioner has asserted that the permanent kacha house was erected on the subject-plot on the strength of the earlier permission dated 04.07.1995 granted by the respondent Municipal Board, the permanent kacha house which was directed to be demolished by the impugned Order dated 06.05.2023 prima facie appears to have been constructed after permission. The petitioner ought to have given an opportunity by the respondent Municipal Board to represent that the permanent kacha house constructed on the subject-plot was constructed after permission or not and only after affording such an opportunity of being to the petitioner, the final order for demolition should have been passed. By not affording an opportunity, the respondent Municipal Board had straightaway proceeded to order for demolition, which action is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. Thus, the impugned demolition Order dated 06.05.2023 does not meet the twin requirements, which are required in respect of an action taken for demolition of a structure of the nature indicated in the impugned order. As the above assertions of the petitioner are being not traversed by the respondent authorities in the Sonari Municipal Board in any manner by their non-appearance, impugned Order dated 06.05.2023 is found unsustainable in law. It is accordingly set aside and quashed. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant