A non-neighbor lacks standing to challenge unauthorized construction unless personal legal rights are infringed.

2. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 submits that the property of the petitioner is approximately 200-300 meters away from the property of the respondent no. 4.

3. Thus, he submits that the petitioner is not the owner of any property immediate to the property, which is subject matter of the present writ petition, and that the present writ petition would not be maintainable on that account.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 also draws the attention of this Court to the table showing the complaints which have been filed by the petitioner, which is reproduced as under:

5. By referring to the aforesaid table, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 submits that the petitioner is in the habit of filing various complaints with respect to various properties, despite the fact that the petitioner is not the immediate neighbour to any of the said properties and is not affected personally by any unauthorized construction in the said properties.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) draws the attention of this Court to the Status Report dated 15th September, 2025, filed on their behalf, relevant portion of which reads as under:

7. Perusal of the aforesaid Status Report filed on behalf of the MCD shows that earlier there were five Sanctioned Building Plans for the same plot. However, subsequently the same have been revoked by the MCD, as the same were found to have been obtained by misrepresentation.

8. Further, perusal of the Status Report clearly shows that the MCD has also booked the property in question for unauthorized construction and Show Cause Notice has been issued with regard thereto.

9. Considering the submissions made before this Court, since the petitioner is not the immediate neighbour of the property in question, the petitioner does not as such have any locus to file the present writ petition. This Court in the case of Rajendra Motwani & Anr. Versus MCD & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11050, has already held that in case a person is not the immediate neighbour and is not affected personally by any unauthorized construction as such, such petitions cannot be maintainable. Thus, in the case of Rajendra Motwani & Anr.(Supra), it was held as follows:

“xxx xxx xxx

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...

xxx xxx xxx”

(Emphasis Supplied)

10. However, at the same time, this Court cannot turn a blind eye to the action taken by the MCD in revoking the Sanctioned Building Plan of the property in question, and booking the same for unauthorized construction.

11. Accordingly, the MCD is directed to take action after following due procedure, in accordance with law.

12. Likewise, owner/occupants of the property in question are granted liberty to challenge the action of the MCD for revocation of their Sanctioned Building Plan, in accordance with law.

13. The MCD shall take requisite action subject to any orders that may be passed in appropriate proceedings, wherein, owner/occupants of the property challenge the revocation of their respective plans.