Full Text
Date of Decision: 13th July, 2026
ISHRAT ADIL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Amit Srivastava, Ms. Uzma, Advocates (M:9318342967)
Through: Mr. Shivam Sachdeva, ASC-MCD with Mr. Sparsh Ruhela, Mr. Yash Agrawal, Mr. Amit Kumar, Ms. Sanjana Chib, Advocates
(M:9971358035)
Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with Mr. Aryan Dhaka, Advocate for DP
(M:9971359512)
Mr. Vikran Sharma, Advocate for R-4 (M:9810069880)
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Mr. Parvin Bansal, Advocates for DDA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):
JUDGMENT
1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non-compliance of the directions passed by the Division Bench of this Court in order dated 09th October, 2024, in W.P.(C) 12805/2024, titled as Ishrat Aadil Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.
2. The aforesaid order dated 09th October, 2024, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, reads as under: “C.M.No.59947/2024
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. C.M.No.59944/2024
3. Present application has been filed by the petitioner/applicant seeking deletion of paragraph 3 of the order dated 12th September, 2024 wherein this Court had disposed of the underlying writ with a direction to the STF to dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 22nd July, 2024.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the factum as mentioned in paragraph 3 of the order that the applicant/petitioner’s property was adjoining the subject property and thereby respondent no.6 has encroached upon the applicant/petitioner’s property as well by breaking the walls of the applicant/petitioner’s property was mentioned at paragraph no.19 of ground D of the present writ petition inadvertently owing to a mistake on behalf of the applicant/petitioner’s counsel.
5. He states that the applicant/petitioner had intended to submit that the respondent no. 5 had encroached upon property belonging to the DDA and not upon the applicant/petitioner’s property. He submits that it was this statement of facts only that was brought to the attention of the STF vide the representation dated 22nd July, 2024.
6. He states that the error made in the petition was purely unintentional and without any mala fide intention.
7. Issue notice.
8. Mr. Abhinav Sharma, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1 and Mr. Mukul Singh, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 4.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid averments in the application, paragraph 3 of the order dated 12th September, 2024 is deleted and the order dated 12th September, 2024 shall now read as under:- “W.P.(C) 12805/2024 & CM APPLs. 53391-53392/2024 ISHRAT AADIL.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Srivastava, Advocate with Ms. Uzma Quraishi, Mr. Jamshed Alam and Mr. Manish Panchal, Advocates.
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS......Respondents Through: Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC with Ms. Ira Singh, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 4. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 12.09.2024
1. Present public interest petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to demolish the purported illegal and unauthorised construction allegedly raised by the respondent No.6 at the property bearing no. XV/3551, Dariba Pan, Pahar Ganj, Delhi–110055, ad measuring approximately 80 sq. yards.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the subject property belongs to DDA, upon which the respondent No.6 has encroached and commenced construction without obtaining any sanction plan or necessary approvals. He further states that the construction is being carried out by using substandard materials and the structure also poses a risk to the neighbours.
3. He further states that the petitioner has raised his grievance with the respondent authorities by filing a representation dated 22nd July, 2024, but no action has been taken on the same. He contends that the respondent authorities are acting in collusion with respondent No.6 by protecting him and taking no action against the said illegal construction.
4. Learned counsel for STF, who appears on advance notice, states that the petitioner’s representation is under consideration.
5. Keeping in view the aforesaid, present writ petition and applications are disposed of with a direction to the STF to decide the petitioner’s representation dated 22nd July, 2024 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. If any action is required to be taken in pursuance to the said decision, the same shall also be taken expeditiously.
6. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 Js”
10. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.”
3. Perusal of the aforesaid order shows the learned Division Bench directed that the representation dated 22nd July, 2024, submitted by the petitioner be decided by the Special Task Force (“STF”) expeditiously and in accordance with law.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) submits that pursuant to the aforesaid representation, requisite action has been taken by the respondent-MCD, and that the property NO. 3551/XV, Fariba Pan Paharganj, Delhi-110055, was booked for unauthorized construction from ground floor to 4th floor. He further submits that actions have been taken on behalf of the MCD, time and again, against the said property. The Status Report dated 03rd July, 2025, filed on behalf of the MCD, reads as under: “xxx xxx xxx
5. Subsequently, another Status Report dated 09th April, 2026 has been filed on behalf of the MCD, relevant portions of which, read as under:
6. Further, a Status Report dated 10th April, 2026, also stands filed on behalf of STF, relevant portions of which, are reproduced as under:
7. Perusal of the aforesaid Status Reports clearly show that compliance of the order dated 09th October, 2024, passed by the Division Bench, has duly been done by the respondents. Further, the respondents are taking appropriate action against the unauthorized construction existing in the said property.
8. At this stage, this Court is informed that respondent no. 4 has filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal MCD (“ATMCD”), against the Demolition order dated 09th September, 2024, passed by the MCD, and that the said appeal is pending, before the ATMCD.
9. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 further submits that the petitioner herein is a habitual litigant, and has filed at least 08 petitions against 08 different properties, even though he has no locus to file the same.
10. Be that as it may, the MCD is directed to ensure that the unauthorized construction in the property in question, is removed completely, subject to the outcome of the appeal, filed before the ATMCD.
11. Noting the aforesaid, the present petition is accordingly, disposed of.
MINI PUSHKARNA (JUDGE) JULY 13, 2026