Consequential Demolition Order Can't Be Challenged Without Challenging Original Demolition Notice: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court has held that a consequential demolition order cannot be challenged in isolation without assailing the original demolition order on which it is founded. [2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 88]Declining to interfere with a demolition schedule issued by the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) for removal of an allegedly unauthorised construction, the Court observed that...
The Gauhati High Court has held that a consequential demolition order cannot be challenged in isolation without assailing the original demolition order on which it is founded. [2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 88]
Declining to interfere with a demolition schedule issued by the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) for removal of an allegedly unauthorised construction, the Court observed that the impugned order was merely consequential to an earlier demolition order passed under Section 88 of the GMDA Act, 1985, which the petitioners had not challenged.
Justice Manish Choudhury presiding over the case observed, “The Order dated 18.06.2026, impugned in this writ petition, is issued only in consequence of the original Order dated 19.11.2025. The Order dated 19.11.2025 has not been put to challenge in this writ petition. In the considered view of this court, without there being any challenge to the original Order dated 19.11.2025, a challenge to the impugned Order dated 18.06.2026, being only a consequential order for stopping the process of demolition is not to be interfered with.”
The petitioners had approached the High Co urt challenging the order whereby the time and date had been scheduled for removal/demolition of an unauthorised construction of a brick boundary wall and house at Dharapur, Guwahati. The impugned order had been passed in consequence of an earlier order under Section 88 of the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1985 (GMDA Act), directing demolition of the unauthorised construction.
The Court noted that a notice had earlier been issued asking the petitioners to stop the unauthorised construction and to show cause why the construction should not be demolished. The petitioners submitted their reply, and thereafter, notices fixing the matter for hearing were issued and it was only after issuance of the show cause notice and notice for hearing that the order came to be passed.
The counsel for the petitioners submitted that there was a provision for appeal under the GMDA Act and that the petitioners wanted to avail the said remedy. The Court found that the petitioners had a statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the original order. It also noted that although the period of limitation had expired, the Appellate Authority had jurisdiction to condone the delay.
Accordingly, the Court held, “In view of the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petition is not entertained, reserving the liberty to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy under the provisions of the GMDA Act by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of one month from today.”
The Court further observed, “If the petitioners prefer any application for condonation of the period of delay in preferring an appeal, the Appellate Authority shall consider the same by taking into consideration all the relevant factors.”
“It is clarified that the observations hereinabove are made only for considering the issue of entertainability of the writ petition, and none of the observations shall be construed as observations on the merits of claims of either the petitioners or the private respondents. Meaning thereby, the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal, if filed, on its own merits and in accordance with law,” the Court clarified.
Case Name: Bimal Baishya & 4 Ors. v. State of Assam & 6 Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 88
Case No.: WP(C)/3459/2026.