Sunil Bagai v. Shri Gyanesh Bharti Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Delhi High Court · 14 May 2026 · 2026:DHC:4401

Sachin Datta

CONT.CAS(C) 1140/2023

2026:DHC:4401

administrative petition_allowed Significant

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed the MCD to decide the regularization application within two weeks and proceed with demolition of unauthorized construction if rejected, emphasizing strict compliance with Court orders and rejecting indefinite delay.

Full Text

CONT.CAS(C) 1140/2023
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 14.05.2026

CONT.CAS(C) 1140/2023 and CM APPLs.26708/2024, 71979/2024, 11697/2025, 61831/2025, 17859/2026, 30428/2026, 71984/2024
SUNIL BAGAI .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.

VERSUS

SHRI GYANESH BHARTI COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Beenashaw N. Soni, SC, Ms. Mansi Jain and Ms. Ann Joseph, Advs., MCD.
Mr. Navin Kr. Thakur, Ms. Prakriti Priya and Ms. Ayesha Parveen, Advs. for intervenor.

CORAM:

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

JUDGMENT

1. The present petition alleges wilful disobedience of the order dated 18.11.2022, passed in W.P.(C) 9015/2022. The said order reads as under:

“1. By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the petitioner seeks following prayers :-

“(a) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent no.’s 1 & 4 to carry out their statutory duty of demolition/removal of all types of encroachments and illegal & unauthorized construction raised on the public land by Respondent nos. 5 & 6 in front & backside of Flat No. C-8/8233 G.F. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, to its original allotted area/condition;

(b) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent no.2 to furnish site/unit plan/structural/building details & total area of the flat i.e.

C8/8233 G.F. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, 110070 occupied and purchased by Respondent No’s 5 & 6 including total area of Courtyard in the front of the Flat No. C-8/8233 G.F. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

(c) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent no. 1 & 4 while carrying out demolition of encroachment and illegal & unauthorized construction raised by the Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 in front of the Flat No. C-8/8233 G.F. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi;

(d) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent no.1 for not carrying out their statutory duty of demolition & illegal and unauthorized constructions despite several complaints filed by the Petitioner in this regard; (e) Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent no. 1 & 4 to not allow Respondent Nos. 5 & 6 for further encroachment of public land.”

2. A Status Report has been placed on record which reads as under:-

“2. That the unauthorized construction in the shape of excess coverage against standard plan at DDA Flat No.8233, GF, C8, vasant Kunj has been booked under section 344(1) and 343 of the DMC Act, vide U.C. File No.359/B/UC/NG/22 dated 23/0512022 and show cause notice was issued to Noticee Mr. Sharma. After following the due process of relevant provisions of DMC Act, demolition order was passed on 21106/2022. Copy of show cause notice and demolition order are annexed herewith as Annexure- A-1 and A-2. 3. That in order to execute demolition order. demolition action was attempted on 08/07/2022, but due to non-availability of police force from PS Vasant Kunj North the demolition action could not be executed. 4. That in addition to above, demolition programme was again fixed and attempted on 12.08.2022 but the action could not be executed as the property was found residentially occupied. 5. That accordingly a Vacation Notice under Section 349 of the DMC Act was issued to Owner/Occupier, vide No.EE(B)NGZ/22/D-1/992 dated 17/08/2022 to vacate the property, so as to execute demolition action. A copy of Vacation Notice was also sent to police authority, which is annexed herewith as Annexure-B.”

3. Learned counsels appearing for the private respondent(s) seek copy of the Status Report. Let the same be supplied to them within one week from today.

4. Be that as it may, learned counsel for respondent No.1, on instructions, submits that having passed the demolition order requisite action would be taken forthwith and in accordance with law. The statement made on behalf of respondent No.1 is taken on record and he is made bound by the same.

5. In view of the aforesaid Status Report and submissions made on behalf of respondent No.1, the present petition is disposed of with the directions to respondent No.1 to take the requisite action expeditiously in accordance with law. Miscellaneous applications are disposed of as infructuous.”

2. It can be seen from the aforesaid order that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) has been directed to take action against the illegal and unauthorized construction around Flat No.C-8/8235, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.

3. Upon a perusal of the record, it is apparent that despite admitted encroachment and repeated assurances given before the Court, the respondent/MCD has not taken any substantive action, thereby leaving the unauthorized construction intact. It is in the above context that the present petition has been filed.

7,223 characters total

4. CM-17859/2026 has been filed by the concerned occupant of Flat NO. 8233, Ground Floor, C-8, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi, seeking a stay of the demolition action scheduled pursuant to the order dated 17.03.2026 passed in these proceedings.

5. When the application first came up for hearing on 23.03.2026, the applicant contended that the demolition order ought to be stayed in light of the pending regularization application filed before the MCD seeking regularization of the alleged excess unauthorized construction.

6. Today, it is submitted by learned counsel for the MCD that as of 23.03.2026, no regularization application was pending. In fact, according to learned counsel for the MCD, the regularization application was filed only on 25.03.2026.

7. It is apparent that an inaccurate statement was made by the applicant on 23.03.2026 to the effect that its regularization application was pending. It was on the basis of the said statement that the demolition action scheduled for 02.04.2026 was allowed to be deferred.

8. It also transpires that the regularization application has still not been decided despite the directions contained in the order dated 06.05.2026, which, inter-alia, directed as under:

“3. Let the regularization application of the applicant in CM- 17859/2026 be decided before the next date of hearing and the outcome thereof be intimated to the Court.”

9. Learned counsel for the MCD submits that there are serious defects in the regularization application, which have not been cured despite opportunities having been granted.

10. This Court is unable to countenance a situation where the removal of unauthorized construction, that too in terms of definitive orders passed by this Court, is indefinitely kept in abeyance on account of a regularization application that is not even being seriously pursued by the applicant therein.

11. Considering the circumstances, the MCD is directed to take a decision on the regularization application latest within a period of two weeks from today. In case the regularization application is rejected or not processed on account of any shortcoming therein, the requisite action for demolition of the unauthorized construction shall be taken by the MCD within two weeks thereafter.

12. It is assured and undertaken by learned counsel for the MCD that the above timeline shall be strictly adhered to.

13. It is agreed that in the event the requisite action is not taken within the aforesaid timelines, the same shall be construed as an egregious breach of the directions issued by this Court on the part of the MCD.

14. The concerned Executive Engineer is directed to supervise the implementation of the aforesaid directions.

15. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

16. Let a compliance affidavit be filed by the MCD within a period of eight weeks.

SACHIN DATTA, J MAY 14, 2026

Sunil Bagai v. Shri Gyanesh Bharti Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

AI Summary

Full Text

JUDGMENT

Contact Us for a Free Consultation