$~52 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16493/2025 & CM APPL. 69275/2025 SURYA PRAKASH GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Abhijaat, Sr. Adv. with Mr.

Manish Raghav, Mr. Prakash Srivastava, Mr. Piyush Sanghi and Mr. Harshvardhan, Advs.

versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anubhav Gupta, PC (Civil), GNCTD for R-1 Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Mr. Bharat Malhotra, Ms. Smritika Kesri and Ms. Gayatri Bhatia, Advs. with Mr. A.K.

Bansal, AE, MCD CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

% 07.11.2025 CM APPL. 69275/2025

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking extension of the interim protection granted vide order dated 30^th October, 2025.

2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present matter pertains to the property bearing No. 56-A/01, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110065, wherein, the petitioner is challenging the Demolition Order dated 14^th October, 2025.

3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that at the time of the disposal of the present matter vide order dated 30^th October, 2025, this Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“ATMCD”), within one week of the said order.

4. Further, interim protection was also granted to the petitioner to enable the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy before the ATMCD by the said order. Thus, it is submitted that there have been certain unavoidable administrative hurdles, because of which the appeal before the ATMCD was filed on 03^rd November, 2025.

5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that though the said appeal was filed on 03^rd November, 2025, however, due to certain objections raised bythe Registryof the ATMCD, the appeal is still to be listed.

6. Thus, it is submitted that the interim protection granted by this Court vide order dated 30^th October, 2025, has expired yesterday, i.e., on 06^th November, 2025. It is submitted that a limited protection may be granted to the petitioner in terms of the order dated 30^th October, 2025, till the appeal is listed before the ATMCD.

7. Responding to the present application, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-MCD has handed over photographs of the property in question, to submit that from the date when protection was granted to the property of the petitioner, i.e., 30^th October, 2025 till date, the petitioner is still carrying out further construction in the propertyin question.

8. The photographs of the property in question, as captured on 31^st October, 2025, have been handed over to this Court, and are reproduced as under:

9. Further, the photograph of the property in question, as taken yesterday, i.e., 06^th November, 2025, is reproduced as below:

10. Perusal of the aforesaid photographs clearly shows that there has been further construction raised bythe petitioner in the propertyin question.

11. Though this Court had granted protection to the petitioner in that no coercive action shall be taken by the MCD for a period of one week, for allowing the petitioner to file an appeal before the ATMCD, in the garb of such protection, the petitioner was not entitled to carry out any further construction in the propertyin question.

12. This Court has taken a veryserious view of this matter.

13. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall not carry out any further construction, till leave is granted bythe ATMCD.

14. Accordingly, it is directed that no further construction that has been carried out by the petitioner in the property in question, after the interim order dated 30^th October, 2025, passed by this Court shall inure to the benefit of the petitioner, and the petitioner shall not claim any equity or benefit on account of any construction in the property in question, having been carried out bythe petitioner.

15. Further, the petitioner shall not occupy the property in question,