Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 16th September, 2025
ARPIT PURI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Raghav Sabharwal and Mr. Raghav Malhotra, Advs.
Through: Mr. Jasman Singh Sethi, Sr.
Municipal Counsel Mr. N.P. Singh and Mr. Vinay Kaushik, Advs. for R-2
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondent no. 1, i.e., New Delhi Municipal Council (“NDMC”) to take action against the illegal construction in the property bearing No. 24, Sarojini Nagar Market, New Delhi-110023.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the Line Plan of the market in question, shops are existing in the ground floor, while residential accommodations exists in the first floor of the shops in the said market area.
3. He submits that in the shop in question, the rear courtyard has been illegally covered, and the toilet complex has been demolished, in order to use it as a separate shop. He further submits that the rear boundary wall has also been converted into a shutter.
4. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for NDMC draws the attention of this Court to the minutes of the meeting dated 26th May, 2008, issued by the Office of Minister of State for Urban Development, Government of India, which reads as under:
5. Learned counsel appearing for the NDMC also draws the attention of this Court to a Show Cause Notice dated 29th April, 2008, which is reproduced as under:
6. By referring to the aforesaid documents, learned counsel appearing for the NDMC submits that unauthorized construction has been existing in the property in question for a long time, and that no action is being taken pursuant to the aforesaid direction by the Ministry.
7. Accordingly, the NDMC is directed to finalize its Policy to deal with the various unauthorized constructions existing in the shops in the Sarojini Nagar Market.
8. As and when the Policy of the NDMC with regard to taking action against the various shops in Sarojini Nagar Market is finalized, requisite action shall be taken against the unauthorized constructions existing in the different shops, including, the shop is question.
9. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner wishes to apply for a Conveyance Deed of the shop in question. However, since the occupant is misusing the property in question, misuser charges shall be levied upon the petitioner. He submits that on the one hand, the NDMC is not taking action against the unauthorized construction, on the other hand, misuser charges are being levied.
10. If that be the case, in case, it is the Policy of the NDMC not to take action against any unauthorized construction existing in the shops in the Sarojini Nagar Market for the time being, and the petitioner applies for conversion of the property in question, then the NDMC shall not raise any misuser charges for the unauthorized construction in the shop in question for the time being, as the Policy of the NDMC with regard to taking action against the unauthorized construction is yet to be finalized.
11. Considering the aforesaid, no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition for the time being.
12. The present writ petition, along with the pending application, stands disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 16, 2025