Delhi High Court Upholds Demolition of Signature View Apartments | Buildings Declared Unsafe Under Section 348 of DMC Act
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi, Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela dismissed an appeal challenging the demolition order of Signature View Apartments in Mukherjee Nagar, holding that the buildings were structurally unsafe and beyond repair. Referring to Section 348 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, the Court noted that the competent authority was entitled to rely on expert reports, including those of IIT Delhi and government-appointed committees, to conclude that the towers had become dangerous. It upheld the Single Judge’s refusal to intervene and confirmed the validity of the demolition order.
The matter before the High Court of Delhi concerned the demolition of Signature View Apartments located in Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi. The appeal was filed against the judgment of a Single Judge who had declined to interfere with the demolition orders issued by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation, later succeeded by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
The controversy arose when the civic body, invoking powers under Section 348 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, directed demolition of the apartment complex on the ground that the buildings had become structurally unsafe and posed danger to residents. Expert reports were relied upon by the authorities, including those prepared by IIT Delhi and other technical committees, which concluded that the structures had deteriorated severely and were not amenable to repair or retrofitting.
The appellants, residents of the housing complex, contended that the demolition order was arbitrary and disproportionate. They argued that the reports could not form the sole basis for such an extreme measure and claimed that alternatives such as repairs and strengthening works had not been fully considered. It was further submitted that the authorities had acted in haste and without proper consultation with the residents, thereby affecting their right to housing and livelihood.
The Municipal Corporation defended its action by relying on the statutory authority conferred under Section 348 of the Act, which empowers the Commissioner to order demolition of premises deemed dangerous or unsafe. The Corporation pointed to multiple expert evaluations confirming that the buildings had become hazardous and beyond restoration, making demolition the only viable option to safeguard public safety.
The Bench observed that “merely because the Commissioner has not passed the order of removal of buildings; rather, it has been passed by his delegate, in our considered opinion, it will not make the order without jurisdiction or vitiated.” The Court stated that Section 348 empowered the Commissioner or his delegate to act on satisfaction that a building was ruinous, likely to fall, or dangerous.
The Court recorded that “the material on the basis of which the order of removal of buildings has been passed is based on the reports of experts, which included the report by an expert from IIT, Delhi as also the test report regarding materials submitted by Shri Ram Institute of Industrial Research.” It held that such reports constituted relevant material under Section 348.
On the argument that the report was by an individual professor and not the IIT, the Court stated, “the competence of a professor of IIT, Delhi, that too, in civil engineering, cannot be doubted. Further, the Consultant, namely Professor Shashank Bishnoi may have charged the consultation fee, it was remitted through the IIT, Delhi and, therefore, the submission in this regard made by learned counsel for the appellant merits rejection.”
Regarding the reliance on external reports, the Bench clarified, “for forming an opinion under Section 348 of the DMC Act, the source of relevant material is not relevant; what is relevant is that the material relied upon for forming such an opinion needs to be germane to forming the opinion that the building in question is in a ruinous condition or has become dangerous.”
On the appellant’s reliance on Mr. Popli’s report, the Court noted, “the said report is only a comment on the report submitted by Professor Shashank Bishnoi from IIT, Delhi. The said report is not based on a structural audit or any kind of survey or inspection.”
Concerning the three-member committee constituted by the Union of India, the Court observed, “apart from going through the structural evaluation report submitted by Professor Shashank Bishnoi of IIT, Delhi, the members of the Committee themselves had carried out a visual inspection of the 12 Blocks of Signature View Apartments.”
The Bench further recorded that the Single Judge had rightly relied upon Supreme Court precedent in Union of India v. J.D. Suryavanshi (2011) 13 SCC 167, wherein it was held that technical questions assessed by experts should not be interfered with in judicial review. The Court also cited National Board of Examination v. Association of MD Physicians, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2362, noting that “if a decision taken by a public authority is a plausible view, only because another view is possible, it is not a ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
The Division Bench concluded, “we are in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the orders under challenge herein for the reason that the discretion under Section 348 of the DMC Act is to be exercised by the competent authority based on the relevant material, sufficiency of which cannot be gone into by the Courts.”
“In the facts of the case, it cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said that there was no relevant material before the authority that passed the order dated 18.12.2023 for removal of the buildings. Various reports of investigation by the Structural Consultants and findings of the testing agency were placed before the authority concerned who on consideration of the said material formed his opinion as per the requirement of Section 348 of the DMC Act and thereafter has passed the order for demolition of the buildings in question.”
“For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the orders passed by the learned Single Judge which are under challenge in this intra-Court appeal, which accordingly fails. Resultantly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Sachin Jain and Mr. Ajay Kr. Agarwal, Advocates
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Katyal, Ms. Kritika Gupta, Mr. Vidur Mohan, Ms. Harshita Sukhija, and Ms. Vidushi Singhania, Advocates for DDA; Mr. Raghuvendra Upadhyay, Panel Counsel with Ms. Purnima Jain and Mr. Tanmay Jain, Advocates for GNCTD; Ms. Puja S. Kalra, Standing Counsel with Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocate for MCD; Mr. Amarendra Rakesh, President RWA and Mr. Gaurav Pandey, Secretary RWA
Case Title: Man Mohan Singh Attri v. Union of India & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8214-DB
Case Number: LPA 533/2025, CM APPL. 51855/2025, CM APPL. 51856/2025 & CM APPL. 51857/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
