Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 13th August, 2025
49647/2025 SUSHIL KUMAR CHAUHAN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Javed Khan, Ms. Anshula Gupta, Advocates (M:8882323437)
Through: Mr. Abhinav Singh, Advocate for R- MCD (M:9811188892)
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) in issuing a Vacation Notice dated 07th July, 2025 and a Sealing Order dated 08th July, 2025, with respect to the property of the petitioner, i.e., property bearing No. B-103, Panchsheel Vihar, New Delhi.
2. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the Vacation Notice dated 07th July, 2025, which reads as under:
3. By referring to the aforesaid Vacation Notice, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the unauthorized construction in the property in question was booked on 22nd September, 2014.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further draws the attention of this Court to the Sealing Order under Section 345-A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (“DMC Act”), which is dated 08th July, 2025 but was passed on 22nd January, 2015, and the same reads as under:
5. Thus, it is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the property of the petitioner is protected under the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second (Amendment) Act, 2014 (“Delhi Special Laws Act”). He relies upon Section 3(2) of the Delhi Special Laws Act, which reads as under:
6. Thus, it is submitted that construction in the property in question is prior to the cutoff date of 01st June, 2014. Therefore, the property of the petitioner is protected from any action by the MCD.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the MCD, on advance notice, has handed over to this Court a copy of the judgment dated 20th October, 2023 passed in W.P.(C) 14313/2022 titled as „Universal Human Rights Foundation Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.’
8. By referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for respondent-MCD submits that the present property of the petitioner, i.e., B- 103, Panchsheel Vihar, New Delhi, was subject matter of the said writ petition.
9. He submits that from perusal of the aforesaid judgment, it is clear that due process was followed by the MCD before passing the demolition order.
10. The aforesaid judgment, as handed over by learned counsel for the respondent, is taken on record.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that with respect to similar petitions for properties in the same area, this Court has not granted any interim protection and directed similar petitioners to approach the Appellate Tribunal MCD (“ATMCD”). For this purpose, he relies upon the order dated 15th July, 2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 9821/2025, titled as „Naveen Chauhan Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi’.
12. Learned counsel for respondent-MCD further submits that a contempt petition being CONT.CAS(C) 1355/2024, titled as „Universal Human Right Foundation Versus Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.’, is pending before the Court, and the next date of hearing in the said case is 24th September, 2025.
13. He, thus, submits that action is sought to be taken by the MCD on account of the contempt proceedings pending against the MCD.
14. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court notes that the facts of the case in W.P.(C) 9821/2025, titled as „Naveen Chauhan Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi’, which was disposed by this Court vide order dated 05th July, 2025, are completely different. The said petition had been filed for the purposes of seeking stay on a vacation notice, on the ground that the petitioner therein be granted time to approach the ATMCD. In the said case, interim protection was refused by the Court on the ground that the vacation notice was preceded by a demolition order, which was in the knowledge of the petitioner. Thus, this Court found no case in favour of the petitioner therein for any interim protection, while granting liberty to approach the ATMCD to seek his remedies, in accordance with law.
15. However, in the present case, the present petition has been filed, since there is no Presiding Officer in the ATMCD presently. Further, the facts in the present case are different, as discussed herein after.
16. This Court notes that unauthorized construction in the property in question in the present case was booked on 22nd September, 2014.
17. On pointed query by this Court, learned counsel for the respondent- MCD has informed this Court that the property in question, which is subject matter of the present writ petition, falls in an unauthorized colony.
18. Perusal of Section 3(2) of the Delhi Special Laws Act, as reproduced hereinabove, shows that with respect to the unauthorized colony, wherever any construction has taken place upto 01st June, 2014, action against such unauthorized construction has been kept in abeyance. The enforcement of the Delhi Special Laws Act has been extended till 31st December, 2026.
19. Since in the present case, the property was booked in September, 2014, this Court takes note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that construction in the present case took place before June,
2014. Thus, clearly, the construction in the present case is within the cut-off date of 01st June, 2014, and is entitled to protection in terms of the Delhi Special Laws Act.
20. As regards the judgment in the case of W.P.(C) 14313/2022 titled as „Universal Human Rights Foundation Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.’, as relied upon by the respondent MCD, the same also does not inure to the benefit of the MCD in any manner. In the said case, the Division Bench of this Court noted that any action by the MCD with respect to the properties mentioned therein, would have to abide by the outcome of the proceedings before the ATMCD. Further, the petitioner in the said case was granted liberty to approach the Special Task Force (“STF”), constituted by the Supreme Court, in respect of any grievance as regards unauthorized construction in the properties in question, which were subject matter of the said writ petition. Thus, there was no specific direction by the Division Bench of this Court to take any action specifically against the property, which is subject matter of the present writ petition, which also formed subject matter of the writ petition in the aforesaid case before the Division Bench of this Court.
21. Considering the aforesaid submissions, a prima facie case has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of protection.
22. This Court is informed that the petitioner has already filed an appeal before the learned ATMCD, wherein, the next date has been given as 10th October, 2025. This Court notes that present petition has been filed before the Court only on account of the fact that there is no Presiding Officer in the ATMCD, presently.
23. Accordingly, considering the detailed discussion hereinabove, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the property of the petitioner, till the matter is heard by the learned ATMCD.
24. Further, on account of the afore-noted detailed discussion, it is directed that the property of the petitioner shall be de-sealed forthwith.
25. Since the main appeal is yet to be heard by the learned ATMCD, it is directed that learned ATMCD shall hear the appeal on its own merits.
26. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition, along with the pending applications, is accordingly, disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J AUGUST 13, 2025