Judgment & Order (Oral):

1. Heard Mr. B Kaushik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in the writ petition as well as in the contempt proceedings. I have also heard Mr. WR Medhi, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the private respondent in both the writ petition as well as in the contempt proceedings and Mr. S Bora, the learned Standing Counsel, who represents the GMDA.

2. The petitioner and the private respondents are both brothers and there are inter-se disputes between them as regards the plot of land, wherein the private respondent had constructed two RCC buildings.

3. The case of the petitioner in the writ petition is that the private respondent had constructed buildings or parts thereof on the basis of a no-objection certificate fraudulently obtained and this aspect was duly noted by this Court in the earlier proceedings and on the basis thereof even the Chief Executive Officer of the GMDA had issued an order dated 04.06.2018.

4. The further grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition is that inspite the order dated 04.06.2018, the GMDA authorities have not taken steps for demolition of the buildings of the private respondent and it is under such circumstances, the writ petition was filed.

5. The record further reveals that on the date on which the writ petition was moved, this Court issued notice and further directed that till the returnable date, no further construction shall be carried out in the building by the private respondent.

6. It is relevant to take note of that in the order dated 12.10.2018, there was no returnable date fixed and in fact the notice was issued by making it returnable by four weeks. Additionally the order was passed ex-parte against the private respondent.

7. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take note of as to why the contempt proceedings was initiated. This Court while issuing the notice in the writ petition on 12.10.2018 directed that the further construction of the building of the respondent No.5 shall not be permitted. In view of the said order, on the basis of the allegations that the respondent No.5 had carried out the construction, the contempt proceedings has been initiated.

8. In the said contempt petition, an affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the private respondent, wherein the private respondent had claimed that he had right over the land in question and there are disputes between the petitioner and the private respondent for which the private respondent had filed the suit which was dismissed and thereupon a Regular Second Appeal was pending before this Court.

9. It is further relevant to take note of that during the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the said Regular Second Appeal being RSA No.65/2013 was dismissed by this Court vide the order dated 13.02.2025.

10. This Court had heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties.

11. From a perusal of the materials on record, it transpires that the dispute between the petitioner and the private respondent is purely a civil dispute and the petitioner has not only involved the public authorities, but also invoked the public law remedy for redressal.

12. During the course of hearing, this Court had enquired with Mr. B Kaushik, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as to whether the petitioner is in possession of the two buildings i.e. G+2 and G+3 over the land in question. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that in respect to the G+2 building the petitioner is in possession of the ground floor and the first floor and the second floor has been constructed on the basis of a fraudulent NOC being issued purportedly on misrepresentation by the private respondent. He further submitted that the NOC has since been cancelled. The learned counsel further submitted that as regards the G+3 building, the petitioner is not in possession of the said building.

13. It is the opinion of this Court that the said dispute being purely a civil dispute, the public law remedy cannot be permitted to be invoked for such redressal, more so, when the petitioner can very well file a suit before the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction seeking declaration of his right, title and interest as well as for recovery of possession by demolishing any structure constructed thereupon.

14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner though submitted that the suit filed by the private respondent which reached to the stage of the Second Appeal before this Court had since been dismissed but the said dismissal of the Second Appeal or the suit filed by the private respondent would not, however, permit the petitioner to interfere with the possession of the land and buildings of the private respondent, unless recourse is taken by following the due procedure established by law.

15. Considering the above, this Court, therefore, is not inclined to entertain the writ petition being WP(C)No.7421/2018.

16. Insofar as the contempt application is concerned, there are disputed question as to whether there was construction carried upon during the period when the interim order was passed and when the interim order was brought to the notice of the private respondents.

17. Considering the above, this Court cannot come to a categorical finding that there has been willful and deliberate violation of the orders passed by this Court.

18. Consequently, the instant writ petition as well as the contempt application stand disposed of with the following observations and directions:

                   (i). This Court is not inclined to entertain the writ proceedings being WP(C)No.7421/2018 for the reasons discussed above and accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

                   (ii). The dismissal of the writ petition, however, shall not preclude or prejudice the petitioner to avail the remedies before the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction by filing appropriate suit seeking declaration as well as recovery of possession and demolition of structure by the private respondent, if so advised.

                   (iii). The instant contempt proceedings stands dropped.

                   (iv). The dropping of the contempt proceedings, however, shall not prejudice the petitioner in any further proceedings so initiated against the private respondent.

                   (v). This Court duly takes note of that the petitioner herein has been diligently and bonafidely pursuing the present proceedings and, as such, the period from 09.10.2018 till date be excluded while computing the period of limitation.