IMPORTANT POINT
The court mandated CBI investigation into unauthorized constructions due to administrative lapses by statutory authorities, emphasizing accountability and structural reforms.

JUDGMENT :

MANMOHAN, C.J.

1. Present Public Interest Litigation had been filed seeking action against officials of the respondents who had allowed the encroachers to carry out unauthorized/illegal construction at Khasra no. 556, Ziyrat Guest House, near Baoli Gate, Hazrat Nizamuddin Dargah, near Police Booth. The petitioner had also sought a direction to demolish the said illegal and unauthorized construction.

2. When the matter was listed for the first time on 16th January, 2024, this Court was informed that despite the petitioner’s representation dated 3rd November, 2023 to the respondents highlighting the illegal construction being carried out at Ziyrat Guest House and the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) issuing a Work Stop Notice dated 11th December, 2023, the statutory authorities had failed to take any action. Since learned counsel for ASI had stated that it had written a letter dated 2nd January, 2024 to the SHO, Nizamuddin (West) to register an FIR, this Court had observed that, prima facie, illegal and unauthorized construction was taking place with the tacit support, if not active connivance of statutory authorities and hence directed the respondents to ensure that no further construction was carried out at Ziyrat Guest House arrayed as respondent no.5.

3. Thereafter, on 1st February, 2024, an impleadment application was filed by Mr. Babu Ali, who claimed himself to be the new owner of Ziyrat Guest House. At that time, learned counsel for MCD had stated that despite sealing the first and second floor of the said property, the erstwhile owner namely, Mr. Raisuddin sold the property to Mr. Babu Ali. He stated that Mr. Babu Ali not only entered the said sealed property but also carried out construction of third, fourth and fifth floors. It was further stated that even the ground and the first floor of the said property were illegal and unauthorised as the land in question belonged to DDA. He had further stated that substantial demolition had been carried out by the MCD on the third, fourth and fifth floors of the subject property. Learned counsel for the DDA had stated that the subject property falls in Khasra No. 556 Min. of Aliganj Revenue Estate, which is government land placed at the disposal of the DDA pursuant to the Nazul Agreement dated 31st March, 1937.

4. Learned counsel for the Delhi Police had stated that on 17th January, 2024, it had registered an FIR No.0024 on the basis of a letter dated 2nd January, 2024 received by the SHO from the office of Conservation Assistant, ASI, Humayun’s Tomb.

5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and upon finding encroachment on public land coupled with illegal and unauthorised constructions at such a massive scale had taken place in the heart of Delhi, that too virtually under the nose of officials of the MCD, DDA, ASI and Police, this Court vide order dated 1st February, 2024 had noted that, prima facie, the matter required to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

6. On 7th and 8th February, 2024, the Deputy Commissioner, MCD admitted before the Court that MCD had received written information from Delhi Police as far back as 23rd October, 2023 and 8th November, 2023 about the illegal and unauthorized construction being carried out at Ziyrat Guest House. She had stated that the said information had been marked to the Junior Engineer (JE) who did not take any action. It was further admitted that despite fresh intimation from the Delhi Police on 9th December, 2023 and from the ASI on 11th December, 2023 and on 2nd January, 2024, the new JE and the Assistant Engineer (AE) had not taken any action. No action was taken even on the representation filed by the petitioner dated 3rd November, 2023 to the Commissioner, MCD.

7. Subsequently, an application being C.M. No. 8584/2024 was filed by Mr. Babu Ali in which it was stated that the owner of the land is Delhi Waqf Board, and not the DDA. Though during the hearing, learned counsel for Mr. Babu Ali had admitted