1. Appeal under Section 19 Contempt of Courts Act against directions for demolition of unauthorised construction. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 19866
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Vikas Mahajan, JJ
Teena Kapoor – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi – Respondent
CONT.APP.(C) 21/2026 | CM APPL. 64194/2026 | CM APPL. 64195/2026
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kanika Agnihotri, Umang Tyagi, Zuber Ali, Shivani Patil
For the Respondents: Kapil Dutta, Amita Sachdeva
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Kanika Agnihotri, Umang Tyagi, Zuber Ali, Shivani Patil
For the Respondents: Kapil Dutta, Amita Sachdeva
A subsequent purchaser of a property is entitled to have their impleadment application considered before the property is demolished to prevent irreparable loss, provided they undertake not to carry out further construction.
Headnote:(A) Contempt Proceedings - Impleadment of Subsequent Purchaser - Right to be heard - Where a subsequent purchaser of a property is not made a party to contempt proceedings resulting in demolition orders, the applications for impleadment must be considered before demolition to prevent irreparable loss. (Para 18)
(B) Interim Protection - Stay of Demolition - Balance of Convenience - Demolition action is stayed until the applications for impleadment are heard on merits, subject to an undertaking that no further construction shall be carried out. (Para 20, 22)
Issues: Whether a subsequent purchaser of a property is entitled to a stay of demolition pending the adjudication of her application for impleadment in the underlying contempt proceedings.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant not impleaded in contempt petition — threat of demolition while impleadment applications pending before Single Judge. (Para 7 , 8 , 12 )
3. Appellant aware of proceedings at purchase but did not participate — impleadment applications need hearing before demolition. (Para 15 , 16 , 18 )
4. Impleadment applications of subsequent purchaser must be considered before demolition to prevent irreparable loss. (Para 18 )
5. Appeal disposed — parties to appear before Single Judge — no demolition until impleadment applications heard on merits. (Para 19 , 20 , 23 )
6. Can a subsequent purchaser challenge a demolition order without being impleaded in the pending contempt petition?
Yes, the court held that impleadment applications of such purchaser must be considered before demolition, failing which irreparable loss would be caused. (Para 7 , 8 , 18 , 20 )
7. What is the effect of a purchaser's knowledge of pending proceedings on rights to challenge demolition?
Knowledge of proceedings does not bar consideration of impleadment applications; court directed hearing on merits before demolition. (Para 15 , 18 , 20 )
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
CM APPL.64195/2026 (for exemption)
2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Application is disposed of.
CONT.APP.(C) 21/2026, CM APPL. 64194/2026 (for stay)
3. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, inter alia, assailing the impugned order dated 9th September, 2026 read with order dated 6th August, 2026 passed by the ld. Single Judge, in CONT. CAS(C) 846/2023.
4. The dispute in the present case relates to the property bearing Flat No. 7, N-26, 3rd Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017 (hereinafter, ‘the subject property’).
5. The Appellant herein is the subsequent purchaser of the subject property, which was purchased by her in the year 2025. She claims to have purchased the subject property from one Ms. Sunita Pathak, vide sale deed dated 31st December, 2025.
6. In respect of the subject property, there were three proceedings which were pending at the time when the purchase took place. The details of the said proceedings as described in the sale deed are as under:
● W.P.(C) No.11613/2022 before the Delhi High Court;
● CS DJ No.307/2023 & CS DJ No.583/2023 before Saket District Court;
● CT Case No.1648/2024 (PS Malivya Nagar), presently at pre-summoning stage
7. The grievance of the Appellant is that while the order dated 6th August, 2026 was passed in CONT. CAS(C) 846/2023, the Appellant was not made a party in the said contempt petition.
8. In the said order, after perusing the photographs placed on record, the Court records that there was fresh construction in the subject property, which was not in the nature of repair or renovation work and was, therefore, unauthorized. Accordingly, the ld. Single Judge vide order dated 6th August, 2026 in CONT. CAS(C) 846/2023 passed the following directions:
“[...]7. Perusal of the aforesaid Status Report shows that the MCD has deposed that upon inspection of the property in question, it is not possible to ascertain the period or age of construction therein.
8. It has further been deposed on behalf of MCD that on visual inspection, it appears that some repair or renovation work has been carried out in the said property.
9. Perusal of the aforesaid Status Report also shows that it is the case of the MCD that they had been intimated withregardtothe repair and renovation work on 01st August, 2022.
10. However, this Court is of the considered view that the aforesaid photographs of the property in question clearly show that the construction was not in the nature of repair and renovation work.
11. Thus, the aforesaid Status Report of the MCD is false on the face of it, as the photographs reproduced hereinabove evidently show fresh construction in the property in question.
12. Accordingly, the matter is referred to the Commissioner, MCD in order to carry out an investigation as to how a misleading Status Report has been filed before this Court.
13. The Commissioner, MCD shall also ensure that requisite action is taken against the unauthorised construction carried out in the property in question, which clearly is in the nature of fresh construction.
14. This Court also takes note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that no inspection was actually carried out by the MCD.
15. Accordingly, let a report be filed by the Commissioner, MCD before the next date of hearing.
16.Liston25thNovember,2026,intheTopTenMatters in the Advance List.
17. A copy of this order shall be sent forthwith to the Commissioner, MCD.”
9. Intermsthereof,theCourthadreferredthemattertotheCommissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘MCD’), for an investigation intothefilingofthemisleadingStatusReport.TheCommissioner,MCD,was further directed to ensure that requisite action was taken against the unauthorised fresh construction carried out in the subject property. The Commissioner was also directed to file a report before the
