SMTI WAHIDA AHMED @ WAHEEDA AHMED vs THE STANDING APPEAL COMMITTEE AND ORS

1.Heard Mr. R.L Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Agarwal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 and Mr. S.

Bora, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC).

The petitioner Smti Wahida Ahmed, wife of Ibrahim Shah Abdali, a resident of Musafirkhana Road, Byelane in Guwahati is also the daughter of the

respondent No.9 Molika Ahmed, wife of late Nekibuddin Ahmed. It is taken note of that Molika Ahmed had died during the pendency of this writ

petition. The respondent No.5 Sri Shakeel Ahmed is the son of Molika Ahmed, in other words, is also the brother of the petitioner Smti Wahida

Ahmed.

It is the case of the parties that some time in the year 1994, late Molika Ahmed along with her husband had booked a Flat in the apartment building

called Luit Apartment located over a plot of land of Dag No.2110 Patta No.127 of Natun Town Sarania, Ulubari Mouza in Guwahati. By an order of

05.09.2003 of the respondent GMC, it was recorded that the respondent No.5 Shakeel Ahmed had submitted an application for transfer of ownership

of the Flat against Holding No.87, Ward No.36(B) at B. Barua Road on the ground that he is the legal heir of Molika Ahmed. Accordingly, by the

order of 25.05.2004, the application of the respondent No.5 Shakeel Ahmed was allowed and the Flat corresponding to Holding No.87 Ward No.36(B)

at B. Barua Road was mutated in the name of the respondent No.5 Shakeel Ahmed. The said order of mutation had been assailed by the petitioner by

filing an appeal   before the respondent GMC. In the appeal, a stand had been taken by the petitioner that both the petitioner Wahida Ahmed and

her mother Molika Ahmed had booked two different Flats with the builder M/s City Apartment Builders. But, the deal undertaken by Molika Ahmed

was unsuccessful as she could not pay the required amount. But on the other hand, the deal undertaken by the petitioner Wahida Ahmed was

completed and one apartment was allotted to her by the concerned builder. It is the claim of the petitioner that the said apartment allotted to the

petitioner is the apartment referred as Holding No.87 of Ward No.36(B) at B. Barua Road, which in fact is the subject of dispute in this writ petition.

To substantiate his claim, Mr. R.L Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner is ready with the required documents to show that the said apartment

bearing Holding No.87 is in fact the apartment purchased and allotted to the petitioner. On the other hand, the respondent No.5 is a bit handicapped

inasmuch as a claim on affidavit has been made that due to a theft in their premises, the concerned documents, by which Molika Ahmed had paid for

the apartment and the apartment was handed over to her, is unavailable as on today. In the aforesaid premises, the only way in which this dispute can

be decided is as per the records of the builder namely M/s City Apartment Builders. It is the builder alone, who can provide the actual information as

to whether the petitioner Wahida Ahmed and the respondent No.6 Molika Ahmed had booked and were allotted two separate apartments or whether

the deal  made by Molika Ahmed was unsuccessful and no apartment was allotted to her or whether the deal made by the petitioner Wahida Ahmed

was unsuccessful and no apartment was allotted in her favour.

In the view of this Court, there is no other way in which the dispute can be appropriately adjudicated. In the premises, as indicated above, it is

deemed appropriate that the GMC initiates a fresh proceeding allowing both the petitioner and the respondent No.5 to appear and produce any

relevant materials that they may desire to produce in order to establish their respective claims over the concerned apartment that is identified by

Holding No.87 of Ward No.36(B) at B Barua Road.

In order to facilitate the adjudication, it is also deemed appropriate that the GMC issue notice to the concerned builder namely M/s City Apartment

Builders and require them to produce the original record of the booking, payment and allotment of the apartment in respect of Luit Apartment, so as to

verify as to who between the petitioner Wahida Ahmed and Molika Ahmed or both had actually booked, paid and were allotted the concerned

apartment/apartments.

The aforesaid exercise be carried out by the respondent GMC within a period of 06(six) months from today. Accordingly, the Commissioner, GMC

on being served with a copy of this order, shall fix the date and time for the appearance of the parties. Upon the respective parties appearing, the

Commissioner shall proceed with the hearing and as indicated shall also issue notice to the concerned builder namely M/s City Apartment Builders and

require them to produce all the records of the booking, payment and allotment made in respect of Luit Apartment.

Accordingly, on 16.03.2018 at 3.00 p.m., both the petitioner as well as the respondent No.5 shall enquire from the office of the Commissioner, GMC

as regards the date and time fixed by the Commissioner for appearance of the parties.

It is provided that the final order to be passed by the Commissioner pursuant to the aforesaid exercise shall substitute all earlier orders passed in this

respect including the impugned mutation order dated 25.05.2004 and the appellate order dated 27.03.2008 and shall prevail between the parties. In

terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.