High Court Appoints Fact-Finding Commission to Resolve Disputing Claims of Illegal Construction: Delhi High Court - 2026-01-21

Ground Truth: Delhi High Court Appoints Commission to Settle Dispute Over Illegal Construction

In a significant move to cut through the claims and counter-claims regarding alleged illegal construction in Jamia Nagar, the Delhi High Court has appointed a two-member Advocate Commission to conduct a physical verification of the premises in question. The order, passed by a bench of the Hon’ble Chief Justice and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia, marks a stern approach to ensuring accountability in municipal compliance.

The Conflict: Photographs vs. Municipal Records

The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed by the Ekta Foundation , which presented photographs alleging ongoing unauthorized construction at property no. S-2/A-14, Jogabai. However, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) vehemently contested these assertions, maintaining that the site had already been subjected to regulatory action.

According to the MCD, legal processes were set in motion as early as May 2025. Counsel for the MCD produced records, including a "watch and ward" order from July 2025 and documentation of an earlier demolition drive, suggesting that the petitioner's claims were based on outdated or misconstrued information.

Turning to the Ground Reality

Faced with two starkly different narratives, the Court invoked its power to appoint a fact-finding commission. The bench has tasked two practicing advocates, Mr. Amit Acharya and Mr. Pravin Bansal, to visit the site accompanied by the area’s Executive Engineer.

The mandate is clear: the Commission must identify the property definitively—specifically by latitude and longitude—and ascertain the current status of the construction in relation to the officially sanctioned building plans.

Key Observations from the Bench

The Court highlighted the necessity of objective evidence in the face of conflicting submissions:

> "To verify the fact as to whether demolition action against the unauthorized construction or any other action was undertaken in respect of the subject property by the MCD... we find it appropriate to appoint a Commissioner to verify the facts and, accordingly, report the matter to the Court."

The Court also took note of the potential for vexatious litigation, noting that:

> "The learned Counsel representing Respondent No. 5 has stated that the present Petition contains incorrect and unverified facts... in respect of the same property, earlier one Mr. Aalim had instituted a writ petition... which has been disposed of... with certain observations in the manner in which the said petition was filed."

Practical Implications

The Court has imposed a strict timeline for transparency. The Advocate-Commissioners are required to submit their report by February 6, 2026. To ensure safety and efficacy during the inspection, the local Station House Officer has been directed to provide adequate police protection.

The petitioner has been ordered to bear the professional costs of the commission, reflecting the Court's stance on the responsibility of parties bringing PILs before the judiciary. With findings expected in the coming weeks, this case serves as a reminder of the Court's reliance on neutral, field-verified evidence when municipal documentation meets public grievances. The matter is set for further hearing on February 25, 2026.