Shahzad Qureshi v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the Demolition Order dated 27th June, 2025, issued under Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (“DMC Act”) and the subsequent Vacation Order dated 06th August, 2025, in respect of the property bearing no. R-98, Khasra No. 1 ETC/113, Gali No. 21, Brahampuri, Delhi-110053.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the owner, and is in possession of property bearing no. R-98, Ground Floor, Khasra No. 1 ETC/113, Gali No. 21, Brahampuri, Delhi- 110053, against which the common Demolition Order dated 27th June, 2025, and subsequent Vacation Order dated 6th August, 2025, has been issued.

3. It is submitted that the aforesaid Demolition and Vacation Order have been issued against the erstwhile owner, namely, Nafees Khan, as the subject property stands mutated in the name of the said owner. However, it is submitted that at present there are six flats, including, ground floor in the property in question, and different persons are living therein after purchasing the said flats.

4. It is submitted that the petitioner did not receive any Show Cause Notice despite the fact that the petitioner is in possession of the property in question since 08th February, 2025. It is submitted that the petitioner is the second subsequent purchaser of the property in question from the owner/ builder of the property in question. However, a common Show Cause Notice dated 30th May, 2025 has been issued by the respondent, which was never received by the petitioner.

5. Thus, it is submitted that the Demolition Order passed against the property in question is unsustainable as the respondent has neither assessed the status of the property in question, nor verified the ownership thereto, on account of which the common Show Cause Notice and Demolition Order have been passed.

6. It is submitted that appeal has already been filed on behalf of the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“ATMCD”).

7. It is submitted that an the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court, as the post of the Presiding Officer of the ATMCD is vacant, and the remedy provided under the DMC Act against the said orders cannot be availed.

8. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-MCD.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-MCD has handed over a copy of the various documents, including, booking of the property, Show Cause Notice as well as the Demolition Order passed against the property in question.

10. The said documents are taken on record.

11. By referring to the aforesaid documents, learned counsel appearing for the MCD submits that the petitioner has already been served with a Show Cause Notice and a Demolition Order on 10th June, 2025 and 3rd July, 2025, respectively.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent relies upon the Tracking Report to submit that despite receipt of the aforesaid Show Cause Notice and Demolition Order, the petitioner has chosen to file an appeal before the ATMCD only now.

13. It is further submitted that the whole property in question, from the ground floor to the fifth floor, is unauthorised.

14. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the appeal has already been filed before the ATMCD, they may be granted limited protection to make their submissions before the ATMCD.

15. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court notes the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that appeal before the ATMCD has already been filed, and only on account of there being no Presiding Officer in the ATMCD currently, the present writ petition has been filed.