Rajesh Dabas v. N Saravana Kumar and Ors

Delhi High Court · 20 Apr 2026 · 2026:DHC:3517

Sachin Datta

CONT.CAS(C) 676/2026

2026:DHC:3517

administrative petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed coordinated enforcement and compliance reporting by authorities to prevent unauthorized construction, allowing the petition alleging non-compliance with earlier court orders.

Full Text

CONT.CAS(C) 676/2026
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 20.04.2026 RAJESH DABAS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nagender Vashisht, Advocate.

VERSUS

N SARAVANA KUMAR AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Mrinalini Sen, SC for DDA (VC)
Mr. Nitesh Mehra, Ms. Hitakshi Mehra, Mr. Angel Bhardwaj and Ms. Shrishty Khairwar, Advocates for R2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)

JUDGMENT

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL.25990/2026 (Exemption)

2. Application stands disposed of.

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience/non-compliance with the directions contained in the order dated 02.04.2025 passed in W.P.(C) 4111/2025. The same reads as under:

“1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel representing the Special Task Force, Ms. Mrinalini Sen. 2. The allegation made in this petition pertains to alleged housing activity being undertaken allegedly by respondent nos. 4 and 5 on certain piece of agriculture land. 3. Learned counsel appearing for Special Task Force on instructions has

submitted that the matter has been taken note of by the STF and has accordingly been referred to Municipal Corporation of Delhi for appropriate action.

4. Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction to the concerned authority of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to take appropriate decision and action which may be warranted under law on the reference made by the Special Task Force.

5. We further direct that the entire matter shall be brought to the notice of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned by learned counsel representing the GNCTD, Mr. Sameer Vashisht, who in turn shall also take action if warranted under law to ensure that no illegal construction takes place.

6. The writ petition is finally disposed of with the aforesaid directions.”

4. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid order, unauthorised colonisation/construction on the concerned land is in full swing as on 13.04.2026. In this regard, certain photographs have been filed by the petitioner along with the present petition. The same are, as under:

5. Issue notice.

6. Learned counsel, as aforesaid, accept notice on behalf of the respondent/s.

7. Learned counsel for the MCD submits that as DDA is the landowning agency, therefore the onus to take necessary action is on the DDA.

8. Ms. Mrinalini Sen, learned standing counsel for the DDA, submits that in respect of the concerned activities, action was taken by the DDA on 28.05.2025.

9. Be that as it may, it is agreed that a fresh inspection would be carried out and if any unauthorised activities/ construction are found to have taken place, appropriate action in that regard shall be taken in accordance with law.

10. The concerned authorities shall liaise with each other to ensure that requisite action is duly taken.

3,027 characters total

11. The concerned SDM is also directed to take requisite action in compliance with the directions contained in Paragraph 5 of the order dated 02.04.2025.

12. Considering the circumstances, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition at this stage. The same is, accordingly, disposed of.

13. The respondents are directed to file compliance affidavit within a period of eight weeks from today.

14. List for reporting compliance on 25.08.2026.

SACHIN DATTA, J APRIL 20, 2026/at/sv

Rajesh Dabas v. N Saravana Kumar and Ors

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation