Aalim v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondent nos. 1 to 5 to stop and demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction raised by respondent nos. 6 to 8, at property bearing No. S- 2/A14, admeasuring 91 sq. yrds.(approximately), located at Khasra NO. 519/258, Joga Bai Extension, Jamia Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi-110025.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 6 to 8, the private respondents in the present case, i.e., the owner/occupier of the property in question, submits that three petitions have been received by the respondent nos. 6 to 8 with respect to the same property. It is submitted that earlier as well, writ petitions being, “Fatima Bi Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.” and “Afsana Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.” were filed with respect to the same property.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 6 to 8 has handed over copy of the said writ petitions pertaining to the same property number as in the present case, which are taken on record.

4. It is submitted that the earlier two writ petitions, though served upon the respondents, were never pursued to have them listed before the Court. This is the third petition with respect to the same property. Thus, it is submitted that various persons are acting as a group of extortionists, in order to extort money from the persons carrying on construction.

5. It is further submitted that in the Memo of Parties in the present case, the residence of the petitioner is shown as follows: Aalim S/o Munavvar, R/o 1, Village Kaneta, Ujhari, Amroha, Uttar Pradesh-244242, Mobile No. 9748376742

6. Clearly, the petitioner is not a resident of Delhi and is not concerned either with the construction in question, or has any concern with the locality, as he is staying in Amroha, Uttar Pradesh.

7. Learned counsels appearing for the various respondents, further point out that the affidavit signed by the petitioner does not reflect, in any manner, that the petitioner was in Delhi at the time of signing or deposing of the affidavit, as the address simply states the petitioner as being a resident of Amroha, Uttar Pradesh.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) submits that as regards the unauthorized construction in the property in question, a Show Cause Notice was issued on 20th May, 2025, followed by a Demolition Order passed on 13th June, 2025. He further submits that pursuant thereto, part demolition action has already been under taken on 10th July, 2025 and further action is fixed for 04th September, 2025.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the Special Task Force (“STF”), submits that the action taken by the MCD, has already been uploaded on the website of the STF. She further submits, that there have been many cases before this Court, wherein, petitions have been filed by persons, who neither stay in the locality, nor have any concern with the property, they seek relief against.

10. She submits that this is clearly a way of extorting money from the concerned persons and blackmailing them.

11. None appears for the petitioner when the matter is called out, despite the fact that the present matter had been heard for some time before passing of the order.

12. This Court also takes note of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 6 to 8 that the petitioner has filed certain notarized documents being shown as general power of attorney, agreement to sell and purchase, affidavit, Will, etc., in order to allege that the petitioner has some vested right in the property in question.

13. The submissions made before this Court clearly show that various petitions are filed by persons, who have no concern with the property. However, petitions are filed only with a view to extort money from the person carrying out construction. The Court notes the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 6 to 8 that they have been receiving calls for extortion of money, on account of the construction carried out by them. This Court deprecates this practice.

14. Though, this Court recognizes the fact that action against unauthorized construction has to be taken strictly, at the same time, this Court cannot be used as a tool to extort money from the persons carrying out such construction. This is clearly abuse and misuse of the process of the Court.

15. This Court notes that the MCD is already taking requisite action against the unauthorized construction existing in the property in question. However, presence of any unauthorized construction does not justify filing of such petitions, with a view to blackmail persons, in order to extort money from them.