JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. With the help of this writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has put to challenge the orders, dated 23.03.2004 and dated 08.01.2006, issued by Chief Executive Officer, Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'GMDA'), Bhangagarh, Guwahati, whereby the permission, accorded to the petitioner for construction of building, stands revoked and the petitioner has been directed to demolish the unauthorized construction. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has averred that he is the owner and possessor of a plot of a land measuring 2 kathas 2 lechas, out of the total land measuring 4 kathas, covered by Dag Nos. 2962 and 2963 of K.P. Patta No. 773, situated at Sahar Sarania, Part-II, of Ulubari Mouza and, as the owner and possessor of the said plot of land, he (petitioner) applied, on 09.08.2001, to the GMDA seeking permission to erect an RCC building for commercial purpose. It is the contention of the petitioner that, later on, he changed his plan and, accordingly, applied to the GMDA seeking permission for construction of a residential building and the respondents/authorities concerned, on being satisfied, issued a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC), dated 14.11.2002, permitting construction of a residential building on the petitioner's said plot of land. By the impugned order, dated 23.03.2004, the respondent No. 2 has, however, revoked the NOC, dated 14.11.2012, whereby the permission for construction of a residential building had been is sued in favour of the petitioner and declared the construction of the building as unauthorized one. It is the petitioner's further case that thereafter, vide letter, dated 01.01.2004, the respondent/authorities concerned issued a Show-Cause Notice to the petitioner asking him to show cause, if any, as to why legal action shall not be taken against unauthorized construction and for submitting false documents to obtain NOC. In response to the notice of show cause, so issued, the petitioner submitted, on 06.01.2004, his reply denying the allegations levelled against him. However, another notice, dated 26.09.2005, was issued to the petitioner by the respondents/authorities concerned, directing the petitioner to stop the unapproved construction and to show cause as to why the building, constructed without necessary approval, shall not be demolished. The petitioner submitted his reply to the later notice too. But, vide the impugned order, dated 08.01.2006, the petitioner has been directed to demolish the unauthorized construction. The petitioner submitted his reply to the later notice too. But, vide the impugned order, dated 08.01.2006, the petitioner has been directed to demolish the unauthorized construction. It has also been averred by the petitioner, in his writ petition that though the order for demolition of the petitioner's building was shown to have been passed on 08.01.2006, the same had not been served upon the petitioner and a photostat of the said notice was served, on the petitioner, only on 29.09.2007. The petitioner's contention is that after having obtained valid permission from the authority concerned for construction of his RCC building, he (petitioner) had started the construction and the construction of the building also was as per the approved plan, that he had never contravened the Master Plan or the Zoning Regulations, that he had completed construction of his RCC building within the time stipulated and permitted for the purpose and, therefore, the respondent No. 2 had no power to issue order of revocation of the permission, once granted, on any ground other than violation of the Rules and Regulations prescribed pursuant to the power conferred on the authorities concerned by the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority Act, 1985 (in short 'the 1985 Act'). Moreover, the petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard before revocation of the said permission, granted to him, which is contrary to the provisions of section 87 of the 1985 Act. 2. Controverting the averments of the petitioner, respondent No. 1 and 2 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, their case being, in brief, thus: (i) An application, dated 09.08.2001, was submitted by the petitioner to the GMDA, seeking permission for construction of two storied RCC building for commercial purpose, but the petitioner's application was rejected by the High Rise Committee in its meeting, held, on 18.10.2001, on the ground that the construction of the said building, exclusively for commercial use, is not permissible as per the Zoning Regulations, because the said plot of land falls in the residential (High) Zone. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted, vide his letter, dated 25.02.2002, a revised building plan for commercial-cum-residential purpose. The said proposal was placed before the High Rise Committee and the Committee directed for site inspection to be carried out in respect of the building plan submitted by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted, vide his letter, dated 25.02.2002, a revised building plan for commercial-cum-residential purpose. The said proposal was placed before the High Rise Committee and the Committee directed for site inspection to be carried out in respect of the building plan submitted by the petitioner. On 31.05.2002, one Sheikh Noor Islam (respondent No. 5) filed an objection, wherein he stated that the land, in question, was a joint property of 4(four) brothers including the petitioner, Sheikh Noor Islam, and that a Title Suit, being Title Suit No. 32 of 1995, in respect of the said joint property, was pending in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division (No. 2) at Kamrup. In the said objection, Sheikh Noor Islam prayed for cancellation of the No Objection Certificate issued to the petitioner by the GMDA. Thereafter, the town planner, GMDA, vide letter, dated 29.08.2002, requested respondent No. 5 to furnish proper documents in support of his objection. As Sheikh Noor Islam (respondent No. 5) failed to furnish any document and as there was no further communication from his side, the matter was placed, once again, before the High Rise Committee and the said Committee approved the plan of the petitioner subject to certain conditions stipulated therein, which, amongst others, included submission of 'No Objection Certificate' from the co-pattadars. The petitioner, then, vide letter, dated 23.10.2002, submitted an affidavit, dated 19.10.2002, wherein the petitioner's three brothers, namely, Sheikh Noor Islam, Sheikh Noor Ahmed and Sheikh Noor Jaman, were shown to have declared that they were joint-pattadars of the land and that they had no objection to the construction of the proposed building by the petitioner on the land, in question. (ii) Pursuant to the affidavit, so filed by the said brothers of the petitioner, the High Rise Committee issued No Objection Certificate, dated 14.11.2010, allowing the petitioner to construct the RCC building. (iii) Thus, permission was granted to the petitioner for construction of his proposed building on the basis of the said affidavit, dated 19.10.2002, whereby the petitioner's three brothers, as indicated above, were shown to have expressed no objection to the construction of the proposed building by the petitioner on the land, in question. (iii) Thus, permission was granted to the petitioner for construction of his proposed building on the basis of the said affidavit, dated 19.10.2002, whereby the petitioner's three brothers, as indicated above, were shown to have expressed no objection to the construction of the proposed building by the petitioner on the land, in question. However, on 27.5.2003, again, a complaint was received from Sheikh Noor Islam, brother of the petitioner, stating to the effect, inter alia, that the said plot of land was under litigation and the that the brothers of the petitioner, who were co-owner of the joint property, had not submitted any affidavit before the authority. On receipt of this complaint, the petitioner was asked by the State respondents to stop construction until further orders and to inform the authority about the status of Civil Suit as well as Misc. Case pending before the Civil Court. Further, the petitioner was asked to give explanation against the allegations with regard to forging of signatures in the affidavit. The petitioner, in his reply, stated that the scheduled land, in the Title Suit as well as in the Misc. Case, was different from the land for which permission for construction and NOC had been granted. (iv) What, however, led the State respondents to make the order, which stand impugned in the present writ petition, is that, in his reply, the petitioner further stated that he had never submitted any affidavit to the authority concerned for the purpose of obtaining permission for construction of building. As the petitioner continued the construction in spite of direction to stop construction, the respondents/authorities concerned stopped the construction of the building with the help of police. In these circumstances, the permission/NOC, dated 14.11.2002, issued to the petitioner was revoked by the authorities by the impugned order, dated 23.03.2004. (v) Thereafter, notice, dated 26.09.2005, was issued, under Section 87 of the 1985 Act, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the unauthorized construction, which had been carried out by the petitioner, shall not be demolished. By the said notice, the petitioner was also asked to appear before the authority, on 06.11.2006, with all relevant documents including the records of the Court cases, etc. By the said notice, the petitioner was also asked to appear before the authority, on 06.11.2006, with all relevant documents including the records of the Court cases, etc. As the petitioner was not available at his residence, the notice was served on the wife of the petitioner and, though the petitioner's wife accepted the notice, she refused to put her signature acknowledging the receipt of the notice. Thereafter, notice, under Section 88 of the Act, was issued by the authority concerned asking the petitioner to demolish the unauthorized constructions within 5(five) days of the receipt of the notice; but the petitioner refused to accept the said notice, whereupon the notice was hanged on the wall of the petitioner's residence. However, as the petitioner failed to comply with the direction, given by the respondents/authorities concerned, for almost 10(Ten) months, the respondents/authorities concerned took steps for demolition of the building with the help of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, and the Police. 3. It is the contention of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the High Rise Committee had approved the application of the petitioner, seeking permission for construction of building, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions, which included the submission of an affidavit of NOC from other co-pattadars of the land. When the petitioner submitted the affidavit, purportedly sworn by the 4(Four) pattadars, who were the co-owner of the land, in question, the NOC/Certificate, dated 14.11.2002, was issued by the GMDA. It is contended by the State respondents that the GMDA Bye-laws provide that for obtaining permission for construction of building, documents, justifying ownership of the land, are to be submitted by the applicant, seeking permission for construction of building, and, in the event of the land not owned by the applicant, NOC, in the form of affidavit, allowing the applicant to construct, has to be submitted by the owner(s)/pattadar(s) of the land, in question. In the present case, the land, in respect of which petitioner applied seeking permission for construction, was jointly owned by the petitioner and his brothers. In the present case, the land, in respect of which petitioner applied seeking permission for construction, was jointly owned by the petitioner and his brothers. The petitioner had submitted an affidavit, claiming his brothers having expressed their concurrence/agreement in the petitioner's constructing of the building on the land, in question; but, on the contrary, his brothers claimed that their signatures had been forged and the permission was obtained by the petitioner on the basis of forged affidavit and that trying to disengage himself completely from the affidavit, in question, the petitioner claims that he never submitted the said affidavit meaning thereby that no affidavit from the co-pattadars, expressing their no objection, had been furnished by the petitioner to the respondents/authorities concerned, though submission of the 'No Objection Certificate' was one of the conditions stipulated in the permission for construction, which had been granted in favour of the petitioner. 4. Respondent No. 5 (i.e., brother of the petitioner), in his affidavit-in-opposition, has submitted that a Title Suit seeking a decree of declaration, partition and permanent injunction has been pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Kamrup, and that a petition, seeking injunction, has also been filed there and the learned Additional District Judge, by order, dated 01.03.1995, passed, in Misc. Case, has directed the petitioner to abstain from raising any construction on the land, in question. However, while the said injunction order was in force, the writ petitioner had, by suppressing the relevant facts, sought for permission from the GMDA to construct the RCC building claiming himself as an absolute owner of the land. According to respondent No. 5, the plot of land, in question, is a joint property and is under litigation, that neither respondent nor his brothers signed any affidavit, as submitted by the writ petitioner before the respondent authority, that the eldest brother of the petitioner, namely, Sheikh Noor Ahmed, whose signature appears in the affidavit, dated 19.10.2002, expired on 14.03.1996 and that the un-registered partition deed, submitted by the petitioner, was also forged. 5. In the reported case of 2000 (1) GLT 457 Narendranath Barman (Dr.) Vs. 5. In the reported case of 2000 (1) GLT 457 Narendranath Barman (Dr.) Vs. Gauhati Metropolitan Development Authority & Ors., it was observed by the Court, in paragraph 45, as under: In view of the above discussion, it is held that power of scrutinizing permission after coming into force of the Master Plan and Zoning Regulation, to carry out development work is with G.M.D.A. and such permission can be refused only on the contravention of the proposal contained in the Master Plan/Zoning Regulation and on no other ground. Further, as stated above, before granting any permission for erection/re-erection of any building, the Commissioner, G.M.C. is bound to get proposal approved by the G.M.D.A. whose authority is limited to the extent of scrutinizing whether construction would regulate the provisions of Master Plan/Zoning Regulation and if building Plan satisfy the requirement, G.M.D.A. is bound to give its approval. In the next stage G.M.C. require to examine the proposal under the provisions of the Act, 1971 and accordingly give permission. The application for permission shall be scrutinized and if found in compliance of the provisions of the Act, 1971 shall issue certificate. Without obtaining certificate an applicant shall not proceed with any construction. If such construction is proceeded with without obtaining the certificate, such construction shall be stopped and liable to be demolished. The machinery constituted by the G.M.C. shall make enquiry time to time so that proper implication of the building plan is approved and certified by G.M.C. is made. 6. In the building Bye-laws of the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority, Clause (1) to Bye law No. 5 provides that every person, who intends to erect or re-erect or make material alternation in any place, in a building or part thereof, within the jurisdiction of Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority, shall give notice, in writing, to the Chief Executive Officer of the authority, of his said intention in the form prescribed from time to time by the authority and such notice shall be accompanied by the plans conforming to the requirements of Sections 25 and 29 of the Act, 1985, in triplicate, on blue or white prints. Sub-clause (g) deals with the documents pertaining to title-ship, which reads as under: Title-ship document to justify the ownership of the land. In case the land is not owned by applicant, lease deed or a NOC for allowing application for construction in the form of affidavit. Sub-clause (g) deals with the documents pertaining to title-ship, which reads as under: Title-ship document to justify the ownership of the land. In case the land is not owned by applicant, lease deed or a NOC for allowing application for construction in the form of affidavit. 7. In the present case, the petitioner, admittedly, applied, initially, for construction on the land, in question, a building for commercial purpose, but the High Rise Committee did not accord permission for the same, because of the fact that a wholly commercial building was not permissible in a residential area and the land, in question, was, admittedly, situated within a residential area. 8. Consequently, the petitioner changed his plan and sought for permission to construct a residential building on the land, in question. Though an objection had been raised by respondent No. 5 to the petitioner's application, seeking permission to build residential building, the said objection was not pursued. However, as a sequel thereto, the High Rise Committee approved the petitioner's application, whereby the petitioner had sought for permission to construct residential building on the land, in question. The permission, so granted, was admittedly, subject to submission of a 'No Objection Certificate' from the co-pattadars of the land, in question, in the form of affidavit. In response to the permission, so granted, an affidavit, shown to have been sworn by the petitioner's co-pattadars, giving their 'no objection' to the proposed construction of the residential building over the land, in question, was submitted and it was on satisfying this condition of submission of an affidavit, shown to have been sworn by the co-pattadars giving their no objection to the petitioner's proposed construction of residential building over the land, in question, that the permission, in question, was granted. 9. However, while the State respondents contend that the petitioner forged the documents by fabricating the signatures of his co-pattadars and, therefore, the affidavit, so submitted by the petitioner, containing 'No Objection Certificate' given by the co-pattadars, was invalid, the petitioner contends that he was not the one, who had submitted the said affidavit. 10. It has been contended before us, my Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are incompetent to determine if the said affidavit was forged or fabricated one. 11. 10. It has been contended before us, my Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are incompetent to determine if the said affidavit was forged or fabricated one. 11. Notwithstanding what has been contended, on behalf of the petitioner, the fact of the matter remains that the permission to construct a building by the petitioner was subject to the submission of 'No Objection Certificate' from the petitioner's co-pattadars. Had no affidavit from the co-pattadars been submitted, there was no question of granting of permission by the GMDA. 12. It is really not material as to whether it was the petitioner, who had submitted the said 'No Objection Certificate' in the form of affidavit of the co-pattadars, or someone else. What is material is the fact that the permission was granted on the basis of the said affidavit shown to have been sworn by the co-pattadars of the land, in question, which even the petitioner disowns. 13. What logically follows from the above discussion is that when the basis for granting permission was the said affidavit, shown to have been sworn by the petitioner's co-pattadars and if the petitioner was not the one, who had submitted the affidavit, no permission, in the light of the conditions, which had been imposed by the High Rise Committee, could have been validly granted. That apart, admittedly, a civil suit is pending between the parties with respect to the land and there is also an order of injunction. 14. To put it a little differently, in absence of any No Objection Certificate from the petitioner's co-pattadars allowing the petitioner to construct building on the land, in question, having been furnished by the petitioner, it cannot be said that a valid No Objection Certificate was issued to the petitioner and the permission, granted to the petitioner by the GMDA, on the basis of such invalid No Objection Certificate, cannot be said to be a valid permission in the eyes of law. Therefore, the construction of the building by the petitioner, on the strength of the permission granted by the GMDA, which itself is invalid in law, was, undoubtedly, unauthorized. 15. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, we find no merit in this writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, stands dismissed. No cost.