WP(C) 6292/2003 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) Heard Ms M. Barman, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr S Bora, le arned Standing Counsel, Guwahati Municipal Corporation( for short, hereafter ref erred to as the ’Corporation’). 2. The petitioner seeks annulment of the notice dated 17.2.2003 (Annexure-V to the writ petition) issued by the Corporation in exercise of its powers unde r section 337(3) of the Guwahati Municipal Act,1969 (for short, hereafter referr ed to as the ’Act’). 3. The uncontroverted pleaded version of the petitioner, in absence of any affidavit by the Corporation is that, he is the owner of the building involved, the second floor whereof is sought to be demolished by the notice in assailmen t. In the year 1984, he applied and obtained permission to construct the ground floor, first floor and the second floor of the building. Though, in the first p hase of construction, he could complete the ground floor and the first floor, du e to paucity of fund, he could not proceed further. In the year 1996, he decide d to construct the second floor of the building along with the garage and the st aircase and accordingly submitted an application with the Corporation under sect ion 328 of the Act to convey to it his intention to that effect. Meanwhile, the period for which the approval/sanction was granted by the Corporation for cons truction of the ground floor, first floor and the second floor had lapsed. This application was received by the Corporation and on 28.11.1996 it assessed the permission fee to be Rs.899/- which was accordingly paid by the petitioner. His averment is that along with the application he had submitted the building plan for the second floor as well. The Corporation, however, did not respond to the s aid application though it was obliged to do so within a period of 60 days ,havin g regard to the nature of construction as required under section 328 of the Act . The petitioner thereafter constructed the second floor strictly abiding by th e plan submitted by him with the Corporation for the purpose thereof. According to him, he immediately thereafter intimated the Corporation to assess the build ing, whereafter it was so done by its officers. His contention is that after th e assessment he has since then paying the taxes for the building including the second floor. While the matter rested at that, the impugned notice was issued al leging violations as mentioned therein. Thereby he was asked to show cause as to why the unauthorized construction should not be demolished failing which the sa me would be do done by the Corporation. Situated thus, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the validity of the said notice. By order dated 12.8.200 3, this Court issued notice and in the interim, stayed the operation of the noti ce impugned. Status quo of the building as on date since then continues till tod ay. Inspite of notice, the respondent Corporation has not filed its affidavit. 3A. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged with reference to section 3 37 of the Act that the impugned notice being barred by time, the same is liable to be adjudged non est in law on that count alone. According to her, as the ple aded version of the petitioner bearing on the impugned action of the Corporati on have remained uncontroverted, it is a fit case where the impugned notice ough t to be quashed. The learned counsel for the petitioner to reinforce her argumen t placed reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 1995(III) 588, Jadav Chandra Das vs. Guwahati Municipal Corporation and Ors. 4. Mr Bora, in reply has argued that as the un-authorized constructions are liable to be demolished, having regard to the building bye laws of the Corporat ion, the impugned notice is valid and ought not to be interfered with. Accord ing to him, at best the petitioner may be left at liberty to rectify the violati ons within the permissible limits on terms and conditions as may be prescribed b y the Corporation in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the building bye laws. 5. The pleadings on record and the submissions made have been duly consider ed. To repeat, the averments made by the writ petitioner supported by an affidav it have remained unchallenged by the Corporation. It would, therefore, not to b e impermissible to rely on the correctness thereof. It is the specific case of the petitioner that before embarking on the process of construction of the secon d floor, garage and the staircase, he had submitted an application in the year 1 996 and on the assessment of the permission fee, he deposited an amount of 899/- and on the completion of the constructions as above, he duly intimated the con cerned authorities of the Corporation following which the building was assessed and he since thereafter has been paying the taxes to it. This Court in Jadav Cha ndra Das(Supra) with reference to section 337 of the Act had held that the power thereunder cannot be invoked in respect of a building constructed on the own l and of a person after completion thereof and if the same had been assessed by t he Corporation. It was also laid down that action thereunder can be taken only w ithin three years from the date of completion of the building provided that the same had not been assessed by the Municipality. 6. On both these counts in the facts and circumstances of the case, the imp ugned notice dated 17.2.2003 cannot be sustained. In the above view of the matt er, the writ petition succeeds. The impugned notice dated 17.2.2003 is hereby adjudged null and void and is thus quashed. No costs.