Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 48507
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J
RUPALI SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI – Respondent
W.P.(C) 12180/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Nipun Kumar, Ms. Rita, Ms. Swabhi Dabas
For the Respondents: Mr. Vinod Kumar Khanna, Mr. Gautam Narayan, Mr. Ayush Gupta
Court emphasized the role of local authorities in preventing unauthorized construction and affirmed need for compliance and inspections based on prior directives.
Headnote:(A) Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Directions sought to restrain unauthorized construction on specific properties in Chandni Chowk, Delhi - Respondent claimed that repair work only was being carried out, supported by previous court orders - Inspection ordered by the Court on the nature of construction activity. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Unauthorized construction - The necessity of verifying claims of repair work versus construction by local authorities emphasized - Directions to file a status report highlighted the court's proactive role in enforcement. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The writ petition seeks to halt illegal construction by a private respondent on specified properties, invoking previous orders regarding the same properties to validate the claims.
Findings of Court:
It was found that no immediate further directions were necessary in light of the counter affidavit submitted by the Municipal Corporation confirming prior proceedings.
Issues: Main issues concerned the nature of work being conducted on the said properties and the actions necessary to address any unauthorized activities.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court affirmed the need for regulatory compliance and appropriate actions by local authorities to prevent unlawful construction activities.
Result: The writ petition was disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition aims to stop unauthorized construction. (Para 1) |
| 2. respondent claims only repair work is being done on properties. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. writ petition disposed of due to counter affidavits confirming previous orders. (Para 5 , 6) |
O R D E R
% 10.09.2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to respondent nos. 1 and 2, to restrain respondent no. 5 from continuing with illegal and unauthorized construction on the properties bearing Plot no. 429, Kucha Brijnath, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 and Plot no. 507, Ground Floor, Krishna Gali, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.
2. When the present matter was listed for hearing on 13th August, 2025, this Court had passed the order, in the following manner:
“1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to respondent nos. 1 and 2 to restrain respondent no. 5 from continuing with the illegal and unauthorized construction being carried out in the property bearing Plot No. 429, Kucha Brijnath, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 and Plot No. 507, Ground Floor, Krishna Gali, Katra Neel, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.
2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for respondent-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”).
3. Learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. 5, the owner/occupier of the properties in question, submits that the properties which are subject matter of the present writ petition, were also the subject matter of various earlier proceedings before this Court.
4. Learned Senior Counsel has handed over to this Court, copies of various orders pertaining to the same properties. He draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 13th September, 2024 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C)13599/2023, titled as ‘Dr. S. Jaitley and Anr. Versus MCD and Ors.’, wherein, statement of learned counsel for the MCD is recorded that only repair work is being carried out in the property in question. Para 3 of the aforesaid order dated 13th September, 2024, passed by Division Bench-I, is reproduced as under:
“3. Learned counsel for MCD, who appears on advance notice, states on instructions that except minor work in Properties No.428 and 507, no other construction is being carried out. She states that though efforts were made to carry out construction on the fourth floor of the Property No.429, yet the same were stalled by the MCD.”
5. Learned Senior Counsel further relies upon the subsequent order dated 07th November, 2024 passed in the aforesaid petition, i.e., W.P.(C)13599/2023, to submit that the aforesaid matter was disposed of with directions to the petitioner therein to make a representation regarding unauthorized construction to the Special Task Force (“STF”).
6. He further relies upon the order dated 05th November, 2024, passed in W.P.(C) 15394/2024, titled as ‘Rahul Sharma Versus Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.’, to submit that the said petition was also with regard to construction in the property in question, which was disposed of with directions to approach the STF.
7. He further draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 20th December, 2024, passed in W.P.(C) 17581/2024, titled as ‘Rahul Sharma Versus Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors’, to submit that said petition was also filed with respect to the property in question, which was again disposed of with directions to approach the STF.
8. He submits that now a contempt petition being CONT.CAS(C) 440/2025, titled as ‘Rahul Sharma Versus Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors’, has been filed, which is next listed on 15th October, 2025.
9. By referring to the aforesaid orders, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. 5 submits that respondent no. 5 has been carrying out repair work and not unauthorized construction.
10. Accordingly, MCD is directed to inspect the property in question forthwith, and file a Status Report with regard to the nature of construction activity being carried out by respondent no. 5.
11. Let Status Report be filed within a period of two weeks, from
