RANADHIR SINGHA Vs. GUWAHATI METROPOLITAN DEVE-LOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms A. Ajitsaria, learned Standing Counsel, Guwahati Metrop-olitan Development Authority (GMDA) for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. S. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) for the Respondent No.5. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appears for the Respondent No.3 and 4. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 23.3.2010 of the GMDA declining to furnish the documents sought for by the petitioner in respect of the building construction by the Respondent Nos.3 and 4, which he contends to be on his land. Petitioner seeks a direction for furnishing of the documents as per his application dated 16.2.2010 submitted under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Prayer is also made to restrain the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 from carrying out further construction of the building over the land described in the sale deed dated 6.7.2005 and also for demolition of the same.

(2.) Case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of a plot of land measuring 2K-10L covered by Dag No.300 (O), Patta No. 277 (O) of village Betkuchi under mouza Beltola, Guwahati City, purchased as per the sale deed No.5599 dated 9.6.1971. Petitioner by executing a Power of Attorney on 23.3.2005 had appointed his younger brother as Attorney to look after the said land. On 28.12.2009, the petitioner's constitu-ted Attorney found construction of a building over the said land. On enquiry, the petitioner could come to know that his aforesaid land had been "sold" by fraud and impersonation through sale deeds dated 7.4.2005 and 6.7.2005. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.

(3.) This Court by order dated 24.8.2011, while admitting the writ petition, directed maintenance of status quo as regards the construction in question. In the course of the proceeding, the docu-ments sought for by the petitioner to support his case have been furnished to him. Accord-ingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no further grievance as regards the furnishing of the documents sought for by him.