$~22 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CM APPL. 65922/2025 IN + W.P.(C) 13909/2025 ANIL KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: (appearance not given)

versus MCD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, Ms. Shweta Singh and Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocates for MCD Mr. Sahil Munjal, SPC with Ms. Rhea Gandhi, Advocate for R-3. (Through video-conferencing)

Mr. Tushar Sannu, Standing Counsel for DJB with Mr. Pulak Gupta Joshi, Advocate for DJB Ms. Chand Chopra and Mr. Shivam Bansal, Advocates for R-3/STF Mr. Manish Srivastava, Mr. Moksh Arora and Mr. Santosh Ramdurg, Advocates for R-4 CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

O R D E R

% 29.01.2026 CM APPL. 65922/2025 (under Section 151 of CPC

1. The present writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 10^th September 2025, directing the respondent no.1/MCD to take action against unauthorised construction existing in the subject property.

2. Subsequently, the present application was filed on behalf of the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-

“a.) Issuing strict and fresh direction to the Respondent No. 1 to demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction raised by the Respondent No.6 to 7 over the property located at B-140, New Ashok Nagar, ChurchGali,Delhi-110096withinastipulatedtimeperiod.”

3. Counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents no.6 and 7 submits that occupants of the ground, first, second, third and part of fourth floors have filed appeals against the demolition order dated 30^th January, 2024 and the sealing order dated 27^th September, 2024 passed by the respondent no.1/MCD before the Appellate Tribunal MCD and have obtained an interim stay on 20^th January, 2026 from the Tribunal.

4. Counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that the stay order dated 20^th January 2026 does not bear the details of the property in respect of which the stay has been granted by the Appellate Tribunal MCD. To verify this, the matter was passed over. Upon passover, counsel for the respondents no.5 and 6 has shown to the Court the appeal paper books which show the details of the property in respect of which the appeals were filed and which is the same as the subject property in the present petition.

5. Mr. Pritish Sabharwal, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1/MCD submits that the respondents have already taken action against the unauthorised construction existing in the said property other than the floors in respect of which the stay order operates. He submits that the action was taken as late as yesterday itself. He further submits that the respondent no.1/MCD shall take appropriate action in respect of the remaining floors based on the outcome of the appeal.

6. Taking the aforesaid statement on record and binding the respondent no.1/MCD, the present application stands disposed of.

AMIT BANSAL, J JANUARY 29, 2026 ds