Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 19th September, 2025
58992/2025 RAGIB KHAN .....Petitioner
Through: None.
Through: Mr. Siddhant Nath, SC for R-MCD
Mob: 9910870397 Email: siddhantadv.nath@gmail.com
Mr. Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr. Tushar Tokas, Ms. Arvinder Kaur and Ms. Aditi Singh, Advs. for R-6
Mob: 9350188064 Mr. Akashdeep, S.I., PS Jamia Nagar.
Mob: 8512076256
58993/2025 & CM APPL. 58994/2025 NARESH KUMAR YADAV .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Aishwarya Dobhal and Mr. Albar Qureshi, Advs.
Mob: 9557844741 Email: aishwarya@adaalegal.com
Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat, Standing Counsel for R-MCD (Through VC)
Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, SPC for UOI Mob: 9810031680
Email: solicitor6@gmail.com Mr. Medhanshu Tripathi, Mr. Tushar Tokas, Ms. Arvinder Kaur and Ms. Aditi Singh, Advs. for R-2
Mob: 9350188064 Mr. Akashdeep, S.I., PS Jamia Nagar.
Mob: 8512076256
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petitions have been filed seeking directions to respondent nos. 1 to 5, to take action against the illegal and unauthorized construction being carried out at property bearing no. F-13/10A, Sir Syed Road, Joga Bai Extension, Near Okhla, New Delhi-110025.
2. This Court is informed that both the properties, in both the petitions are one and the same, despite the description of the property in W.P.(C) 13636/2025, being F-13/1, Khasra No. 187, located at Joga Bai Extension, Sir Syed Road, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi-110025.
3. Learned counsel appearing for Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) draws the attention of this Court to the Status Report dated 16th September, 2025 filed on behalf of the MCD, wherein, details of the action taken by the MCD against the unauthorized construction in question, is brought forthwith. The relevant portions of the Status Report filed on behalf of the MCD, are reproduced as under: “xxx xxx xxx
4. Learned counsels appearing for the MCD further submit that further action was also taken on 17th September, 2025.
5. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the photographs attached with the present Status Report, which are reproduced as under:
6. Perusal of the aforesaid Status Report clearly shows that requisite action has been taken by the MCD.
7. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6 in W.P.(C) 13237/2025, who is also the respondent no. 2 in W.P.(C) 13636/2025, submits that he is the owner of the property in question. He submits that the petitioner in W.P.(C) 13237/2025, stays approximately one kilometre away from the property in question, while the petitioner in W.P.(C) 13636/2025, stays approximately fifteen kilometres away from the property in question.
8. None appears for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 13237/2025, when the matter is called out.
9. Clearly, the petitioner in W.P.(C) 13237/2025, who stays away approximately one kilometre away from the property in question, has no locus to file the present writ petition. Since the petitioner is not the immediate neighbour of the property in question, the petitioner does not as such, has any locus to file the present writ petition. This Court, in the case Rajendra Motwani & Anr. Versus MCD & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11050, has already held that in case a person is not the immediate neighbour and is not affected personally by any unauthorized construction as such, such petitions cannot be maintainable. Thus, in the case of Rajendra Motwani & Anr.(Supra), it was held as follows: “xxx xxx xxx 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... xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied)
10. Thus, this Court expects that whenever such a situation arises, where petitions are being filed by the persons, who do not have direct interest in the unauthorized construction being carried out, such status shall be brought to the notice of this Court, on the first date itself, by the counsels appearing for the Statutory Bodies.
11. This Court notes the submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 13636/2025, that the petitioner is the owner of the property in question, which is disputed by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2, in W.P.(C) 13636/2025.
12. Without going into the issue as regards the ownership of the property in question, since requisite action has already been taken by the MCD, any further directions, in that regard are not required to be issued for the time being.
13. The MCD and Station House Officer (“SHO”), Police Station Jamia Nagar, shall ensure that any construction in the property in question, shall take place only after due Sanctioned Plan is obtained and that no further unauthorized construction takes place in the property in question.
14. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petitions, along with the pending applications, are accordingly disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 19, 2025