Manish Chawla v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The Application stands disposed of.

3. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred assailing the order dated 15.05.2026 (“Impugned Order”) passed in CM APPL. 58226/2024, whereby stay of the speaking order dated 20.09.2024 (“Speaking Order”) passed by Respondent No. 1, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), pursuant to the order dated 27.05.2024 (“Disposal Order”) passed in W.P.(C) 5082 of 2024 (“Writ Petition”) and in CM APPL. 58228/2024 compliance with the Disposal Order by the MCD were sought (“Miscellaneous Applications”).

4. By way of the Impugned Order, the learned Single Judge disposed of both the Miscellaneous Applications, observing that the Appellant had already challenged the Speaking Order by filing Appeal No. 923/2024 before the Appellate Tribunal, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“ATMCD”), wherein stay of the Speaking Order had been granted. The learned Single Judge further observed that, since the MCD had already complied with the Disposal Order by passing the Speaking Order, no further relief could be granted for compliance with the Disposal Order. However, the Impugned Order directed the MCD to take appropriate action based on the outcome of the appeal pending before the ATMCD.

5. The Appellant had filed the Writ Petition seeking directions against the MCD for demolition of the alleged illegal and unauthorized construction on the ground floor, first floor and servant room on the third floor of property bearing No. 24/70, Punjabi Bagh West, New Delhi (“Subject Property”), in view of the demolition order dated 05.02.2014 (“Demolition Order”) passed by the MCD.

6. In view of the status report filed on behalf of the MCD and the issuance of a show-cause notice dated 21.05.2024 (“Show-Cause Notice”) under Section 345A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (“DMC Act”) to the owner/builder of the Subject Property, calling upon them to show cause as to why the Subject Property ought not to be sealed in accordance with law, the Writ Petition was disposed of vide the Disposal Order with directions to the MCD to adjudicate the Show-Cause Notice by passing a speaking order thereon within a period of eight weeks and to take further consequential action, in accordance with law.

7. Thereafter, the MCD passed the Speaking Order holding that the construction of the basement and ground floor of the Subject Property existed prior to 2007 and was, therefore, protected under the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2011 (“Special Provisions Act”), on account of which no demolition action could be taken against the Subject Property.

8. Aggrieved by the Speaking Order, the Appellant filed the Miscellaneous Applications in the disposed of Writ Petition. Vide the Impugned Order, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Miscellaneous Applications with observations as stated above. Aggrieved thereby, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal.

9. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Demolition Order qua the ground floor portion of the Subject Property was never challenged by the concerned owners and had, therefore, attained finality. It was submitted that protection under the Special Provisions Act could not have been extended to the Subject Property by reopening a concluded determination made under the Demolition Order. It was further submitted that the MCD had no power under the DMC Act to review, recall, reopen or nullify its own concluded Demolition Order.

10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the ATMCD can adjudicate only such matters as are actually brought before it, and that there are no proceedings pending before the ATMCD challenging the Demolition Order. It was further submitted that the Demolition Order continues to remain final, operative and binding, and that the MCD has failed to take any action for demolition pursuant thereto. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also contended that the Speaking Order adjudicating the Show-Cause Notice erroneously held that no demolition action could be taken against the Subject Property.

11. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of by the learned Single Judge without consideration of the merits of the Appellant’s submissions. It was contended that the Miscellaneous Applications were maintainable, as they sought only implementation of the Disposal Order. According to the Appellant, the MCD grossly violated the Disposal Order by passing the Speaking Order. Accordingly, learned Counsel for the Appellant prayed for quashing and setting aside of the Impugned Order.

12. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the material placed on record.

13. The Miscellaneous Applications were filed in the Writ Petition after the same had already been disposed of. Once the Disposal Order was passed, the learned Single Judge became functus officio, and an application seeking compliance with the Disposal Order could not be entertained, save and except to the limited extent of exercising review jurisdiction where an error apparent on the face of the record is established. Accordingly, the present Appeal, filed assailing the Impugned Order, is also not maintainable.

14. In any event, the MCD has already complied with the Disposal Order by passing the Speaking Order, and the Appellant has already challenged the Speaking Order before the ATMCD. The contention raised in the present Appeal with regard to the Demolition Order can always be considered by ATMCD while considering the challenge against the Speaking Order.

15. In the event the Appellant is aggrieved by any subsequent order that may be passed by the ATMCD, it shall be open to the Appellant to avail such remedies as may be available in accordance with law.