Locus standi for challenging unauthorized construction requires proximity, affecting legal rights.

2. This Court notes that a Status Report dated 15th September, 2025, has been filed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), relevant portions of which, are reproduced as under:

“xxx xxx xxx

”

3. 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 However, subsequently, the same have been revoked by the MCD, as the same were found to have been obtained by misrepresentation.

4. 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.

5. Considering the submissions made before this Court, since the petitioners are not the immediate neighbours of the property in question, the petitioners do not 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, then petition filed by such person cannot be maintainable. Thus, in the case of Rajendra Motwani (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 ofthe illegal construction of the neighbour...

xxx xxx xxx”

(Emphasis Supplied)

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

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

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

9. 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.