The court held that a neighbor cannot invoke writ jurisdiction for unauthorized construction without demonstrating that their legal rights are directly affected.

2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), points out to this Court the Status Reports filed on behalf of MCD, to submit that action with regard to the unauthorized construction in the properties in question, has already been taken, and that further action shall also be taken.

3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 8 submits that the property of respondent no. 8 and the petitioner, are situated at opposite ends of the street. Thus, he submits that no easement rights or any right pertaining to sunlight etc. of the petitioner, are affected.

4. He, thus, submits that no fundamental or legal right of the petitioner are affected, and thus, the present writ petition would not be maintainable on this ground. Further, for this purpose, he relies upon the various orders passed by this Court in this regard.

5. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court notes that vide Status Report dated 12th August, 2025, the respondent-MCD has elucidated the action taken against the properties in question. The relevant portions of the Status Report, read as under:

“xxx xxx xxx

6. Subsequently, a further Status/Action Taken Report has been filed on behalf of the MCD dated 27th August, 2025, wherein, it is stated as under:

“xxx xxx xxx

xxx xxx xxx”

7. Noting the aforesaid Status Reports filed on behalf of the MCD, it is apparent that the MCD has been taking regular action against the unauthorized construction existing in the properties in question.

8. Though, the MCD has already initiated and taken action against the properties in question, this Court notes the submission made before this Court that the house of the petitioner and the properties, which are the subject matter of the present writ petition, wherein, unauthorized construction has been found, are not adjacent to each other.

9. At this stage, this Court also takes note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the properties in question and the house of the petitioner, are 3-4 buildings away on the same street.

10. Clearly, even as per the admission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the unauthorized construction in the properties in question and the house of the petitioner are not adjacent to each other, and are situated at a distance, though on the same street.

11. It is to be noted that in the case of Yogesh Middha Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi (South) and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine Del. 1281 , this Court had held as follows:

“xxx xxx xxx

6. There is no gainsaying that a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India lies only for enforcement of a fundamental or legal right.

7. Notably, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajendra Motwani v. MCD reported as 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11050 has held as follows:

“10. …that an illegal construction in itself does not give any legal right to a neighbor. An illegal construction always no doubt gives locus standi to the local municipal authorities to seek removal of the illegal construction, but, a right of a neighbor only arises if the legal rights of light and air or any other legal right is affected by virtue of the illegal construction of the neighbour…”

8. Recently, in Pawan Kumar Saraswat v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation reported as 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4530 , another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court took note of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , invok