Gauhati HC stays GMC order to demolish Fancy Bazar building, finds no sign of Section 342 notice on record
Justice Pranjal Das put the Guwahati Municipal Corporation commissioner's 17 September 2026 demolition direction on hold until the returnable date, noting that the Guwahati Municipal Act requires notice and a chance to object before an unsafe building is pulled down, and that the writ papers showed no such notice.
A municipal order to demolish an RCC building on M.S. Road in Guwahati's Fancy Bazar has been stayed by the Gauhati High Court, which found nothing in the writ papers to show that the owner or occupier had been served the notice the Guwahati Municipal Act, 1971 requires before a building is condemned. Justice Pranjal Das issued notice on the petition on 23 October 2026 and stayed the Commissioner's order of 17 September 2026 until the returnable date. The matter is listed again on 16 November 2026.
A compromise decree, an execution case and a demolition memo
The petitioners are Prabha Devi Kothari, her husband Rajendra Kumar Kothari and their partnership firm, M/s Sohanlal Sumermal, all of M.S. Road, Fancy Bazar. The private respondent is Sunil Bajoria of Shillong. The two sides had earlier entered into a compromise decree over the property, and an execution proceeding, Title Execution Case No. 11 of 2014, was initiated before the Civil Judge, Kamrup (Metro). Bajoria's application in that case questioning whether the decree could be executed was rejected, and his challenge to that rejection, CRP (I/O) No. 335 of 2026, has been argued and reserved for judgment by Justice Das himself.
Alongside the execution case runs Title Suit No. 574 of 2025. On 19 September 2025 the Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), granted a temporary injunction restraining the opposite parties from demolishing the building described as Schedule II, until the returnable date. An appeal against that order, FAO No. 65 of 2025, was withdrawn, with an observation at the appellant's request that the injunction application, Misc. (J) No. 879 of 2025, be decided within 30 days. On 29 October 2025 the civil judge directed that the injunction matter proceed ex parte against the Guwahati Municipal Corporation, which was opposite party No. 6, and extended the temporary injunction until another application, Misc. (J) No. 936 of 2025, seeking rejection of the plaint, was disposed of. Bajoria challenged that order in CRP No. 480 of 2025, in which the High Court stayed the 29 October 2025 order until the returnable date.
Into this came the Commissioner's memo No. GPL/Misc/147/2025/145 of 17 September 2026, directing Bajoria to carry out demolition of the RCC structure. Senior advocate D. Das, assisted by N. Rahman, pointed out that when CRP No. 480 of 2025 came up on 8 October 2026 and the petitioners were given a last chance to reply to the respondents' objection, the demolition order had already been passed but was not brought to the court's notice.
What Section 342 requires before a building comes down
The petitioners' case rests on Section 342 of the Guwahati Municipal Act, 1971, which the order reproduces in full. Where the Commissioner, after obtaining the Engineer's opinion, considers a building unfit for human habitation or occupation, he must give the occupier, or the owner if the building is unoccupied, written notice stating his reasons and his intention to prohibit further use, and call for objections within seven days. The owner or occupier must be heard before the Mayor-in-Council before a prohibition order is made. A prohibition notice must give occupants at least fourteen days to leave with their belongings. If the Commissioner thinks the building can be made fit by structural alterations and repairs, the owner gets six months to carry them out; only if that fails, or if the building cannot be made fit at all, does a 30-day demolition notice follow. Even then, the Commissioner may order demolition by a municipal employee or contractor only after the owner has been given an opportunity to show cause, and the salvaged materials are sold by auction with the proceeds, less costs, paid to the owner.
Das argued that none of this had been done. P. Nayak, Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State and the Corporation, took the judge through the report placed before the municipal authority on the building's condition and the need to demolish it, and said the exercise was required in the interest of public safety, for which the Corporation is responsible as a public institution. He also pressed the coordinate bench's stay in CRP No. 480 of 2025 and submitted that no order in the writ should have the effect of diluting it. On whether notice had been served, he said that would have to be ascertained from other materials.
Justice Das read Section 342 as requiring notice and an opportunity to object before the Corporation exercises its powers over such structures; only if no objection comes after that opportunity may the authority proceed. The petitioners said no notice had been issued. The Corporation could not say that one had. From the materials annexed to the writ petition, the judge found no document indicating that any such notice had been furnished. He also took into account that the executability of the decree, challenged in CRP No. 335 of 2026, was awaiting his own pronouncement.
Order
Notice was issued on the writ petition, to be served on Bajoria by speed post and dasti. The Commissioner's order of 17 September 2026 is stayed until the returnable date. The judge added that all stakeholders, including the petitioner who is stated to be living in the building, should do the needful for the safety of life and limb. The matter is listed again on 16 November 2026. P. Khataniar and N.R. Surana also appeared for the petitioners.