Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioner seeking judicial intervention against ongoing unauthorized construction activity allegedly being carried out by respondent 4 at the premises located at Paharganj, Mini Pushkarna, J., directed that no unauthorized construction shall be allowed in the property in question.
The petitioner was seeking directions from the Court to respondent authorities primarily the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to halt such illegal construction work, which was purportedly in blatant violation of building norms and without requisite sanction. In response to the petition, the counsel representing the MCD submitted before the Court that the MCD had already taken cognizance of the matter. He placed on record certain documents demonstrating that the unauthorized construction at the property in question had already been “booked.” A show cause notice was issued in this regard to respondent 4. These documents were duly taken on record by the Court.
The MCD further assured the Court through its counsel that appropriate and necessary action would be undertaken in accordance with the law. The Court took this assurance on record and noted that the MCD was bound to initiate and complete the requisite action after following the due process of law. The Court directed that such action must be undertaken expeditiously and preferably concluded within a period of six months from the date of the order.
In addition to binding on the MCD to act within a specified timeframe, the Court explicitly directed that no further unauthorized construction be permitted on the said premises. Thus, in order to enforce this, the Station House Officer (SHO) of the local police station concerned was directed to ensure that no further unauthorized construction activity is carried out at the site in question.
However, the Court also ensured that the rights of the alleged violator, respondent 4, were protected in law. It clarified that respondent 4, being the current occupier of the premises, was at liberty to avail legal remedies in accordance with law if he were to be aggrieved by any future action undertaken by the MCD pursuant to the proceedings.
In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition and the connected miscellaneous application with these directions, balancing both the need for enforcement against illegal construction and the protection of procedural safeguards and rights of the affected parties.
[Kuntesh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 4894, decided on 09-07-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Animesh Shukla, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. Karan Kapur, ASC for MCD, Ms. Arti Bansal, Adv. with Ms. Shruti Goel, Advs. for DDA