Full Text
Date of Decision: 08th September, 2025
R V SINHA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.S. Singh, Adv.
Through: Mr. Samrat Pasrichha, Ms. Chanya Jaitley, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma and ms. Nayoleeka Purty, Advs. for
R-5 Mrs. Anasuya Choudhury, Adv.
Ms. Theepa Murugesan, Adv. for MCD (Through VC)
RV SINHA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. A.S. Singh, Adv.
Through: Mr. Samrat Pasrichha, Ms. Chanya Jaitley, Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma and ms. Nayoleeka Purty, Advs. for
R-8 Mr. Akhil Mittal, Adl. SC for DDA Mr. Sharique Hussain and Ms. Kirti Garg, Advs. for R-7
Mrs. Anasuya Choudhury, Adv.
Ms. Theepa Murugesan, Adv. for MCD (Through VC)
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to respondent nos. 1 and 7, to restrain respondent nos. 8 and 9 from carrying out illegal and unauthorized construction at the properties bearing Plot NO. 224, Rajpur Khurd Extension Colony, Chattarpur, New Delhi and Plot NO. 81, Khasra No. 148, adjacent to Happy General Store, Rajpur Khurd Extension Colony, Chattarpur, New Delhi.
2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), points out to this Court the Status Reports filed on behalf of MCD, to submit that action with regard to the unauthorized construction in the properties in question, has already been taken, and that further action shall also be taken.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 8 submits that the property of respondent no. 8 and the petitioner, are situated at opposite ends of the street. Thus, he submits that no easement rights or any right pertaining to sunlight etc. of the petitioner, are affected.
4. He, thus, submits that no fundamental or legal right of the petitioner are affected, and thus, the present writ petition would not be maintainable on this ground. Further, for this purpose, he relies upon the various orders passed by this Court in this regard.
5. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court notes that vide Status Report dated 12th August, 2025, the respondent-MCD has elucidated the action taken against the properties in question. The relevant portions of the Status Report, read as under: “xxx xxx xxx
6. Subsequently, a further Status/Action Taken Report has been filed on behalf of the MCD dated 27th August, 2025, wherein, it is stated as under: xxx xxx xxx”
7. Noting the aforesaid Status Reports filed on behalf of the MCD, it is apparent that the MCD has been taking regular action against the unauthorized construction existing in the properties in question.
8. Though, the MCD has already initiated and taken action against the properties in question, this Court notes the submission made before this Court that the house of the petitioner and the properties, which are the subject matter of the present writ petition, wherein, unauthorized construction has been found, are not adjacent to each other.
9. At this stage, this Court also takes note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the properties in question and the house of the petitioner, are 3-4 buildings away on the same street.
10. Clearly, even as per the admission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the unauthorized construction in the properties in question and the house of the petitioner are not adjacent to each other, and are situated at a distance, though on the same street.
11. It is to be noted that in the case of Yogesh Middha Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi (South) and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine Del. 1281, this Court had held as follows:
6. There is no gainsaying that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies only for enforcement of a fundamental or legal right.
7. Notably, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajendra Motwani v. MCD reported as 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11050 has held as follows: “10. …that an illegal construction in itself does not give any legal right to a neighbor. An illegal construction always no doubt gives locus standi to the local municipal authorities to seek removal of the illegal construction, but, a right of a neighbor only arises if the legal rights of light and air or any other legal right is affected by virtue of the illegal construction of the neighbour…”
8. Recently, in Pawan Kumar Saraswat v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation reported as 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4530, another Coordinate Bench of this Court took note of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for relief such as the one sought in the present petition. The learned Judge observed as follows:—
9. Admittedly, the petitioner in the present case does not have any connection with the property in question. He has further failed to show as to which fundamental or legal right of his is being affected by any alleged construction activity carried out in the subject property. It appears that the present petition has not been filed for enforcement of any fundamental or legal right, but rather for some motivated reasons.
10. In this backdrop, this Court is not inclined to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant the relief sought by the petitioner. Besides, it has been informed by the learned counsel for respondent/Corporation that the alleged illegal and unauthorised construction at the subject property has already been booked. (Emphasis Supplied)
12. Further, in the case of Arman Khan Versus South Delhi Muncipal Corporation and Others, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4780, it had been noted as follows:
6. There is no gainsaying that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies only for enforcement of a fundamental or legal right.
7. Notably, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajendra Motwani v. MCD reported as 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11050 has held as follows:— “10. …that an illegal construction in itself does not give any legal right to a neighbor. An illegal construction always no doubt gives locus standi to the local municipal authorities to seek removal of the illegal construction, but, a right of a neighbor only arises if the legal rights of light and air or any other legal right is affected by virtue of the illegal construction of the neighbour…”
8. Recently, in Pawan Kumar Saraswat v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation reported as 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4530, another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court took note of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for relief such as the one sought in the present petition. The learned Judge observed as follows:— “15. Though unauthorized illegal construction, which is becoming rampant, cannot be countenanced however, I am of the view that a party that does not approach the Court with clean hands and files a petition with ulterior motives should not be permitted to invoke the extra ordinary Writ jurisdiction of this court. I am of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed.”
9. In the present case, the petitioner, who is about 22 years of age, claims that he resides near the subject property. He has raised grievance regarding unauthorised construction stated to be going on at the subject property. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that he neither has any connection with the subject property nor is an immediate neighbor of resident thereof. Notably, no Show Cause Notice is stated to have been issued by the respondent/Corporation in respect of the construction at the subject property till date.
10. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that his easement rights or ingress/egress are being affected/obstructed by the alleged construction activity. From a perusal of the petition, it is apparent that only vague and general averments have been made by the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has not even impleaded the owner of the subject property and/or the builder stated to be carrying out the unauthorised construction at the subject property. In this backdrop, it appears that the present petition has been filed not to secure any fundamental/legal right, but for some motivated reasons.
13. This Court further takes note of the order dated 01st July, 2024 passed in W.P.(C) 8833/2024, titled as “Sh. Ajay Bansal Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.”, wherein, it has been held as follows:
8. At this juncture, it is also apposite to refer to the decision of this Court in the case of Rajendra Motwani & Anr. v. MCD &Ors., whereby, it was held as under:- “8. --- An illegal construction always no doubt gives locus standi to the local municipal authorities to seek removal of the illegal construction, but, a right of a neighbor only arises if the legal rights of light and air or any other legal right is affected by virtue of the illegal construction of the neighbor. Legal right to light and air is only in terms of Section 15 of the Easements Act, 1882 which requires a cause of action to be laid out and proved that right to light and air has been enjoyed for 20 years and only on completion of 20 years there is a right to acquisition by prescription in the easementary rights. It is relevant to note that even after acquisition of easementary rights of prescription, yet, right to injunction for a neighbor is not absolute and is covered by Section 33 of the Easements Act which requires that disturbance to the easementary rights must actually cause substantial damage to a neighbor and the infraction materially diminishes the value of the dominant heritage with the fact that there is material interference in the physical comfort of the neighbor of living in his own house or prevents the neighbor from carrying on his accustomed business in the dominant heritage/his own house.”
9. The decision in the case of Rajendra Motwani (supra) has been followed in a subsequent decision dated 23.05.2022 titled as Kamal Kapoor and Anr. v. Commissioner (North MCD) and Ors., wherein, the Court rejected the prayer to direct the respondents therein to take action against the alleged illegal construction/encroachment on the ground that the petition was not filed to secure any fundamental or legal right. Under the facts of the case at hand and in light of the aforesaid decisions, the petitioner’s request for directions to the respondent-MCD to decide the representation does not seem to be amenable to writ jurisdiction.
14. Considering the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that no fundamental or legal right of the petitioner is affected. Thus, though the MCD is directed to take requisite action, in accordance with law, against the properties in question, it is held that the petitioner as such has no locus to file the present petition.
15. As far as the respondent nos. 8 and 9 are concerned, their right for seeking their remedies, in accordance with law, is reserved.
16. This Court notes the submission made by learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 8 that respondent no. 8 has not received any Show Cause Notice prior to the passing of the Demolition Order.
17. Without going into the said issue, the respondent nos. 8 and 9 are at liberty to challenge the said Demolition Orders, if they are so aggrieved.
18. With the aforesaid directions, the present petitions, along with the pending application, are disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 8, 2025