Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6489
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sachin Datta, J
Naseemuddin – Appellant
Versus
Ashwani Kumar – Respondent
CONT.CAS(C) 1500/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sana Anasari, I. Ahmed, Tanveer Zaki
For the Respondents: Mukesh Gupta, Madhu Yadav, Sneha Roy, Niraj Kumar
When compliance with a demolition order is contested, the court may direct a fresh inspection in the presence of the petitioner and mandate the removal of any remaining unauthorized structural components within a fixed timeline to ensure the full enforcement of the court’s original directives.
Headnote:(A) Delhi Municipal Corporation Act - Section 435 - Contempt of petition - Wilful disobedience - Unauthorized construction - Inspection and demolition - Where completion of demolition work is disputed, court directed a fresh inspection by the municipal authority in the presence of the claimant - Mandate to identify any subsisting unauthorized construction and take it to logical conclusion within eight weeks - Directions issued for compliance affidavits to be filed by the respective authorities - Petition disposed of in view of the stated assurance of compliance. (Paras 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of a long-standing court order regarding the demolition of unauthorized construction on a property. The municipal body submitted detailed status reports indicating multiple demolition attempts, citing hurdles such as pending litigation regarding specific parts of the property and physical access issues at the site. The petitioner challenged the claim that the demolition was complete, producing evidence to argue that unauthorized construction persisted.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that despite reported efforts by the civic authority, the dispute regarding the status of the first floor required a definitive resolution. Balancing the reports of partial demolition with the petitioner's grievance, the court ordered a fresh inspection in the presence of the petitioner, coupled with a mandatory time-bound action if further unauthorized construction is detected.
Issues: The main issues were whether the civic body had substantially complied with the initial demolition order and how to address the petitioner’s claim regarding lingering unauthorized structural work.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the execution of a demolition order is contested, the court may ensure full compliance by ordering an on-site inspection with the involvement of the affected party, requiring the authorities to complete the demolition to its logical conclusion within a stipulated timeframe.
Result: Petition disposed of with directions for inspection and compliance reporting.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background regarding the alleged disobedience of a prior demolition order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. directive to inspect and demolish unauthorized construction upon verification. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. disposal of petition with mandatory compliance reporting requirements. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
SACHIN DATTA, J. (Oral)
The matter is taken up today in view of Notification No.64/G-4/Genl.-I/DHC dated 27.02.2026.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 28.10.2022, passed in W.P.(C) 3506/2018.
2. An updated status report has been filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), wherein it has been stated as under:
“3. That it is respectfully submitted that the demolition order dated 12.07.2019 in respect ground floor and first floor of P.No. 1040, Phatak Mufti Walan, Darya Ganj, Delhi 110002 was passed which was challenged by the Smt. Husan Bano vide appeal no.440/2019 titled as Husan Bano Vs. NDMC, wherein vide order dated 23.02.2024 protection under special laws was given to the ground floor of the subject property but appeal was dismissed qua first floor of the property. Against the said order dated 23.02.2024 the appellant filed an appeal bearing no.5/2024 titled as Husan Bano Vs. MCD before the District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi. The appeal is still pending for adjudication before the Hon’ble Court wherein in the next date of hearing 29.10.2025. A copy of order dated 22.09.2025 is annexed herewith as Annexure-A.
4. That it is submitted that in execution of demolition programmes were fixed in respect of first floor of the property on 03.02.2021, 22.02.2021, 03.03.2021, but the same were not executed due shortage of time. Further programme was fixed on 20.09.2024 wherein roof of one room at first floor was demolished partly. Further in continuation thereof a demolition programme was further fixed on 26.09.2025 but could not executed due to shortage of time. Another programme was fixed on 09.10.2025 wherein the property was found locked as such no action was taken. Accordingly, a notice under section 435 of the DMC Act was issued to the owner/occupier directing that no such lock or barrier may be put on the premises otherwise lock shall be broken on the spot without any further notice. Further, in the demolition programme fixed on 15.10.2025 the property was found unlock accordingly, complete roof and partition wall of the first floor was demolished and the property is made inhabitable. Photographs showing the action taken on 15.10.2025 are annexed herewith as Annexure-B(Colly).
5. That it is submitted that a watch and ward letter dated 15.10.2025 was issued to the SHO P.S. Darya Ganj to keep strict watch and ward over the demolished portion so that further construction could not take place. A copy of watch and ward letter dated 15.10.2025 is annexed herewith as Annexure-C.”
3. However, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely upon some photographs, produced during the course of hearing to contend that unauthorized construction continues to subsist.
4. In the circumstances, it is directed that the first floor of the property, which is the subject matter of order dated 23.02.2024 passed by the ATMCD in Appeal No. 440/2019 shall once again be inspected by the MCD in the presence of the petitioner.
5. In case any unauthorized construction is found, appropriate demolition action shall be taken by the MCD in accordance with law, and shall be taken to its logical conclusion in respect of the entire subsisting unauthorized construction, within a period of eight weeks of the said inspection.
6. The concerned SHO will provide appropriate assistance to the MCD for the purpose of the demolition.
7. Mr. Mukesh Gupta, learned Standing Counsel appearing for MCD assures that the requisite action in accordance with law shall be taken and there shall be no disobedience thereof with the aforesaid directions.
8. In the circumstances, accepting
