GMC is aggressively issuing permissions and occupancy certificates while adjusting violations. Whether this drive serves public interest or caters to vested interests remains to be seen; an upset resident has vowed to drag GMC to court
ALSO READ: Women's Day Special: Guwahati Residents Appeal For Gender Equality
The Guwahati Municipal Corporation (GMC) launched a special drive in February to expedite building permissions, occupancy certificates, and regularisation applications for all types of structures. This initiative will continue through March. However, GMC’s history of alleged corruption and scams, along with its questionable approval processes, continue to raise concerns. Many residents remain unaware of the procedures, with some even facing harassment in the process. Cases of irregularities have surfaced, exposing flaws in the system that impact homebuyers and builders alike.
In once such instance, Namrata Chakraborty, a resident of Nikhil Niwas in Jyotikuchi, is preparing to take legal action against GMC. She purchased a flat in July 2022 but is yet to receive the sale deed. Upon investigating, she discovered significant loopholes in GMC’s building permission and occupancy certificate processes, raising serious concerns. This has led her to uncover what she believes to be an alarming trend of irregularities in GMC’s dealings with building approvals.
She found that a building permit was issued in 2019 to Rajib Kumar Biswas, who passed away in September that year. In 2021, a new registered development agreement was made between his legal heirs and the promoters, yet a fresh GMC building permit was never obtained in the legal heirs' names—an apparent violation of building by-laws. “This is a violation of building by-laws,” alleged Namrata. Shockingly, in March 2023, GMC issued an occupancy certificate under Biswas’ name, despite him being deceased. “Occupancy Certificate was applied in the name of the dead person Rajib Kumar Biswas at Guwahati Municipal Corporation on March 17, 2023,” said Namrata, adding that shockingly, the GMC even provided the occupancy certificate in just 10 days. This raised major questions about the scrutiny process followed by the corporation while issuing such crucial certificates.
Architect Ranel Kumar Das confirmed that when submitting a completion report for an occupancy certificate, the original permit holder must sign. If deceased, legal heirs must provide a succession certificate, and the occupancy certificate is issued to them. Namrata, initially unaware of such procedures, grew suspicious after prolonged delays in receiving her sale deed. The promoters initially claimed it was pending due to the occupancy certificate, but after she escalated the matter to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA), they admitted they had already obtained it.
Using RTI applications, Namrata accessed documents exposing anomalies, including non-compoundable construction violations. “Information regarding the fraudulent activities (Fake Occupancy Certificate issued for a dead person and illegal construction) was furnished to Guwahati Municipal Corporation through written applications and emails,” said Namrata. After multiple follow-ups, a lone GMC engineer conducted a site inspection and confirmed unauthorised deviations. “The site inspection report submitted by the Zonal Engineer of GMC clearly mentions the presence of non-compoundable deviations and unauthorised construction in the project 'Nikhil Niwas',” alleged Namrata. The fact that such deviations exist and that the promoters were able to obtain approval despite them further adds to concerns about the corporation’s accountability and transparency.
Consequently, a demolition order was issued on January 30, 2025, but the promoters appealed, and the matter remains unresolved. Namrata insists she will file a writ petition if GMC fails to act. The lack of swift action on GMC’s part raises questions about the efficiency of the system and whether enforcement is being applied equally to all cases of violations.
One of the promoters, Rahul Chakraborty, dismissed Namrata’s allegations, accusing her of harassment and blackmail. “Namrata Chakraborty is harassing and blackmailing us,” said Rahul, adding that in the apartment, no other flat owners have any issues other than Namrata’s family. He insisted that Nikhil Niwas had minimal violations. Regarding the occupancy certificate issued in a dead person’s name, he cited GMC’s by-laws, claiming that building permissions are non-transferable. “It is according to the by-law that permission is non-transferable,” he said. He further argued that they followed all legal clauses in their appeal to GMC.
A senior GMC official acknowledged that issuing an occupancy certificate under a deceased person’s name was a mistake and stated it could be corrected. Meanwhile, numerous flat owners across Guwahati still await occupancy certificates years after purchasing their homes. Some residents have even reported being unaware that such certificates are necessary for legal ownership and resale of their properties. This highlights a broader issue of lack of awareness and possible misguidance by builders regarding the legalities of property ownership.
Internal inquiries have also exposed irregularities in GMC’s approval process, with allegations that a single engineer, allegedly influenced by a political leader, conducted inspections across multiple wards instead of the designated officers. The fact that inspections were conducted in an irregular manner has led to suspicions that the approvals process may not be impartial. The absence of standard protocol in such an essential process raises concerns about the fairness of GMC’s approach.
It has also been reported that flat owners of an apartment on AK Azad Road have not yet received their occupancy certificates despite owning their homes for years. Similar complaints are being heard from multiple parts of Guwahati, indicating that Namrata’s case is not an isolated incident. A GMC source revealed that, in some cases, occupancy certificates were approved en masse by a single engineer, deviating from the assigned responsibilities of different engineers in each ward. The lack of proper oversight in these cases reflects a systemic issue that needs immediate attention.
At present, GMC is aggressively issuing permissions and occupancy certificates while adjusting violations. Whether this drive serves public interest or caters to vested interests remains to be seen. Given the past record of alleged mismanagement and corruption, many residents are sceptical about the corporation’s intentions. While the expedited process aims to streamline approvals, it remains uncertain whether due diligence is being carried out to prevent the recurrence of fraudulent cases like Namrata’s.
The matter raises fundamental questions about the functioning of the urban local body, which is entrusted with ensuring compliance with regulations while safeguarding the interests of residents. As more cases come to light, the spotlight on GMC’s operations continues to intensify, and it remains to be seen whether the administration will take corrective measures to restore public confidence in its processes.
