Gauhati HC Declines Writ Against GMDA Demolition Order, Directs Petitioners to Statutory Appeal Before District Judge

Petitioners who failed to challenge the original demolition order under the GMDA Act were told to exhaust the statutory appeal remedy before the District & Sessions Judge, Kamrup, within one month.

The Gauhati High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition filed by five residents of Dharapur, Guwahati, who sought to halt the scheduled demolition of a brick boundary wall and house that the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority characterised as unauthorised construction. Justice Manish Choudhury, sitting singly, found that the petitioners had not challenged the original demolition order dated 19 November 2025 passed by the GMDA's Chief Executive Officer under Section 88 of the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1985. Since the writ targeted only a consequential scheduling notice for 6 July 2026 while leaving the root order intact, the court declined to interfere and directed the petitioners to avail the statutory appeal remedy under the GMDA Act.

The Construction at Dharapur and the GMDA's Action

The five petitioners — Bimal Baishya, Krishna Baishya alias Krishna Ram Das, Dinesh Baishya, Rasida Begum, and Jakir Hussain — are residents of Dharapur, Baishyagaon, in Kamrup Metro district. Their properties fall within the Guwahati Metropolitan Area covered by the Master Plan and Zoning Regulation.

On 2 July 2025, the GMDA's Chief Executive Officer issued a notice to the petitioners under Section 88 of the GMDA Act directing them to stop what the authority described as unauthorised construction and asking them to show cause why the structure should not be demolished under Section 88(1). The petitioners replied on 11 July 2025. The GMDA observed that they had not produced any planning permit for the construction, and after fixing a hearing date of 6 August 2025 and notifying the petitioners, passed Order no. eCF No. 662954/24 on 19 November 2025 directing demolition of the unauthorised structure.

A further order dated 18 June 2026 then scheduled the actual removal or demolition for 11:00 a.m. on 6 July 2026. The petitioners went to the High Court challenging that 18 June 2026 notice, asserting violations of the Building Bye-Laws and of Sections 24 and 25 of the GMDA Act.

The Legal Problem: Challenging the Consequence, Not the Root Order

Justice Choudhury identified a fundamental difficulty with the petition at the outset. The order of 18 June 2026 was not an independent decision; it was issued purely in consequence of the original demolition order of 19 November 2025. The petitioners had not put that earlier order to challenge anywhere.

The court's position was direct: without a challenge to the original order that directed demolition, there was no basis to stop a scheduling notice that merely gave effect to it. The consequential notice could not be faulted on its own when the foundation order stood untouched.

At that point, counsel for the petitioners, Mr. A.K. Azad, acknowledged the difficulty and submitted that the petitioners wished to avail the statutory appeal remedy provided under the GMDA Act.

The Appellate Framework Under the GMDA Act, 1985

Justice Choudhury examined Chapter VIII of the GMDA Act, which carries the heading “Appeals and the Appellate Authority” and contains Sections 71, 72, and 73.

Section 71 requires the State Government to appoint an appellate authority to hear all appeals arising from the Act, with the appointee required to hold qualifications equivalent to a District Judge or a member of the Assam Board of Revenue. By Notification no. GDD.49/94/Pt/44 dated 22 August 1996, issued under Section 71(2) and bearing the approval of the Gauhati High Court, the State Government designated the District & Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati as the Appellate Authority under the GMDA Act.

Section 72 sets out the authority's duties: to hear and decide appeals against orders of the GMDA and to exercise such other powers as the State Government may confer. Critically, sub-section (2) of Section 72 requires appeals to be filed within one month of the order appealed against, though the Appellate Authority may condone delay for sufficient reasons.

Section 73 gives the Appellate Authority the powers of a civil court for taking evidence on oath, enforcing witness attendance, and compelling production of documents. It may also award costs.

The court noted that the limitation period to appeal against the original order of 19 November 2025 had already expired by the time the matter was heard. However, the Appellate Authority's power to condone delay remained available to the petitioners.

Why the High Court Stepped Back

The GMDA Act provides a complete appellate mechanism with a designated authority, civil court powers, and discretion to condone delay. The petitioners had not approached that forum before filing the writ. Where a statutory remedy is available and adequate, a writ court will ordinarily leave the party to exhaust it.

Here, the petitioners themselves conceded they wished to pursue the appeal route. The court treated that submission as dispositive and declined to entertain the writ petition, while being careful to record that its observations were confined to the question of entertainability. The court made clear that nothing it said would colour the merits of the dispute for either side.

Outcome

Justice Manish Choudhury dismissed the writ petition as not entertained. The petitioners were granted liberty to file a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority — the District & Sessions Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati — within one month from 26 June 2026.

The court directed that if the petitioners also filed an application for condonation of the delay in preferring the appeal against the original order of 19 November 2025, the Appellate Authority shall consider it taking into account all relevant factors.

The order expressly clarified that the Appellate Authority shall decide any appeal filed on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observation in the High Court's order. A copy of the GMDA's order dated 19 November 2025, produced by the standing counsel for GMDA, was retained with the case record.