Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Over Unauthorized Construction, Warns Against Misuse of Pleas, Terms It an Attempt to “Arm-Twist the Builder,” Imposes ₹50,000 Cost
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed a writ petition seeking demolition of alleged unauthorized construction in Jogabai Extension, New Delhi. The Court warned against the misuse of petitions by unscrupulous persons alleging unauthorized constructions, underscoring that only those directly affected may file such pleas. Observing that the litigant had taken no steps to seek possession of the property in Jamia Nagar where he claimed unauthorized construction, the Court imposed costs of ₹50,000, directing payment to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk’s Association.
The matter originated from a writ petition filed before the High Court of Delhi by Shri Balbir Singh. He sought a direction for the demolition of what he described as unauthorized construction in the Jogabai Extension area of New Delhi, specifically concerning a property situated in Jamia Nagar.
Balbir Singh alleged that the construction was illegal and that the municipal authorities had failed to take appropriate action against it. He presented himself as seeking to curb violations of building regulations and claimed that the construction should be removed.
During the hearing, the Court examined the basis of the petitioner’s claims. It emerged that Balbir Singh had not taken any legal steps to obtain possession of the property in question and could not demonstrate that he had a direct, legally recognized interest in it. The Court also noted that the petitioner did not present supporting evidence such as official records or documents from the municipal authorities to substantiate the allegations of unauthorized construction.
The absence of concrete material to prove the illegality of the construction or to establish his own standing in the matter became central to the Court’s assessment of the case. The proceedings therefore focused on whether the petitioner was a genuinely aggrieved party entitled to seek relief under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
The petition was brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which empowers the High Court to issue directions to public authorities. However, no specific statutory provisions or municipal regulations were invoked by the petitioner to support his allegations.
The Court noted, “Clearly, despite raising submission before this Court that the property in question belongs to the petitioner, there is no suit for possession filed on behalf of the petitioner.” The Court found that this absence of civil action raised serious doubts about the genuineness of the petitioner’s claim.
The Bench recorded that the petitioner’s address in the memo of parties was in Faridabad, Haryana, and not in the locality of the disputed property. It stated, “This raises doubt as regards the genuineness and bonafide of the case put forth by the petitioner.”
Referring to the earlier case of Ragib Khan v. Commissioner MCD & Ors., the Court noted that the MCD had already taken necessary action against the unauthorized structure. The Court recorded, “Clearly, the present writ petition has been filed with nefarious designs and with an ulterior motive, wherein the petitioner has filed the present petition on the basis that the property in question belongs to him.”
Justice Pushkarna further stated, “It is to be noted that despite raising such plea, the petitioner has only filed the present writ petition against unauthorized construction and no steps have been taken by the petitioner to seek possession of the property in question, which allegedly is owned by the petitioner.”
It observed, “Various orders have already been passed by this Court that it is only those persons, who are directly affected by unauthorized construction and who are the immediate neighbors living in the vicinity of the property in question, are entitled to file a petition against any unauthorized construction.”
The Court recorded, “A new strategy is being employed by various parties, wherein, they file petitions against the unauthorized construction on the ground that the premises where such unauthorized construction is being raised, is owned by such persons.” The Court condemned this practice, terming it an attempt by unscrupulous individuals to “obtain unlawful gains for themselves” and “use the solemn process of this Court.”
The Court concluded that the petitioner’s conduct amounted to abuse of judicial process, stating, “Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present writ petition is clearly an attempt by the present petitioner to arm twist the builder of the property in question for undesirable and dishonest considerations.” The Court further recorded, “The Court has to deal with such people strictly who try to use the process of the Court for dishonest considerations.”
The Court held, “Accordingly, the present writ petition, along with the pending application, is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 50,000/- payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk’s Association, Account No. 15530100006282, IFSC Code: UCBA0001553, Bank Name: UCO Bank, Branch: Delhi High Court.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar Verma, Advocate (through VC)
For the Respondents: Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, SPC with Ms. Tripti Sinha, Advocate; Mr. Siddhant Nath, Standing Counsel for MCD with Mr. Bhavishya Makhija and Mr. Amaan, Advocates; Mr. Akhil Mittal, ASC with Ms. Riddhi Jain, Advocate
Case Title: Shri Balbir Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8860
Case Number: W.P.(C) 15235/2025 & CM APPL. 62446/2025
Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna
