A writ petition seeking demolition of alleged unauthorized construction in a Chandni Chowk shop was dismissed for want of locus standi, the petitioner being a non-resident of Delhi with no affected legal or fundamental right.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~86
versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS...... Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, MCD alongwith Mr. Arman Monga, Adv. for MCD. Mr. Arun Panwar and Ms. Prashansha Sharma, Advs. for R-2 and R-3. Mr. Kirti Uppal, Sr. Adv. alongwith Mr. Deepak Agarwal, Mr. Aditya Raj and Ms. Pragati Sharma, Advs. for R-6.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMLA RAWAT Signing Da te:3 0.05.2024 16:58:00
W.P.(C) 7544/2024 Page 1 of 5
noticed that significant unauthorized construction has taken place in the shop in question.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMLA RAWAT Signing Da te:3 0.05.2024 16:58:00
W.P.(C) 7544/2024 Page 2 of 5
petitioner to show that any of his fundamental/legal rights have been violated.
“ 10. ...that an illegal construction in itself does not give any legal right to a neighbour. An illegal construction always no doubt gives locus standi to the local municipal authorities to seek removal of the illegal construction, but, a right of a neighbour only arises if the legal rights of light and air or any other legal right is affected by virtue of the illegal construction of the neighbour...”
“15. … Suffice would it be to state that all and sundry cannot question the legal status of buildings in Delhi. It is only people in the neighbourhood whose air and light or enjoyment of their properties is in peril, would alone have a locus standi to raise issues pertaining to legality of buildings in their area.”
“10. As noticed herein above, admittedly Petitioner's light, air and legal rights are not affected. He is not even a neighbour. Petitioner has selectively filed this petition only against the property of Respondent No. 2 and the reason given by learned counsel is that the son of Respondent No. 2 has filed a petition on which action has been taken by the Corporation against several properties.”
“8. There is no gainsaying that a petition under Article 226 of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMLA RAWAT Signing Da te:3 0.05.2024 16:58:00
W.P.(C) 7544/2024 Page 3 of 5
Constitution of India lies only for enforcement of a fundamental or legal right.
9. Notably, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Rajendra Motwani v. MCD reported as 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11050 has held as follows:—
“10. …that an illegal construction in itself does not give any legal right to a neighbor. An illegal construction always no doubt gives locus standi to the local municipal authorities to seek removal of the illegal construction, but, a right of a neighbor only arises if the legal rights of light and air or any other legal right is affected by virtue of the illegal construction of the neighbour…”
10. Recently, in Pawan Kumar Saraswat v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation reported as 2021 SCC OnLine Del 4530, another Coordinate Bench of this Court took note of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court for relief such as the one sought in the present petition. The learned Judge observed as follows:—
“15. Though unauthorized illegal construction, which is becoming rampant, cannot be countenanced however, I am of the view that a party that does not approach the Court with clean hands and files a petition with ulterior motives should not be permitted to invoke the extra ordinary Writ jurisdiction of this court. I am of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed.”
11. In the present case, the petitioner admittedly does not have any connection with the property in question. He is stated to have come across the alleged unauthorized construction at the subject property while he was passing through the area. The petitioner has further failed to show as to which fundamental or legal right of his is being affected by any alleged construction activity carried out in the subject property. It is quite apparent that the present petition has not been filed for enforcement of any fundamental or legal right, but rather for some motivated reasons.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMLA RAWAT Signing Da te:3 0.05.2024 16:58:00
W.P.(C) 7544/2024 Page 4 of 5
15211/2022.
SACHIN DATTA, J
MAY 27, 2024/ r, dn
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:KAMLA RAWAT Signing Da te:3 0.05.2024 16:58:00
W.P.(C) 7544/2024 Page 5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a petitioner who is not a Delhi resident and whose own legal or fundamental rights are unaffected has locus standi to seek demolition of unauthorized construction under Article 226.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh ChaufalReferred¶7
(2010) 3 SCC 402 · Who else cites this
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of IndiaReferred¶7
(1984) 3 SCC 161 · Who else cites this
Harbanslal Sahnia v. India Oil Corporation Ltd.Referred¶7
(2003) 2 SCC 107 · Who else cites this
Ghulam Qadir v. Special TribunalReferred¶7
MANU/SC/0608/2001
Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West BengalReferred¶7
MANU/SC/0063/1962
Bangalore Medical Trust v. B.S. MuddappaReferred¶7
MANU/SC/0426/1991
S.P. Gupta v. Union of IndiaReferred¶7
MANU/SC/0080/1981
Rajendra Motwani v. MCDRelied on¶9
2017 SCC OnLine Del 11050 · Who else cites this
Shakti Singh v. MCDRelied on¶10
LPA 992/2011
Shiv Kumar v. South Delhi Municipal CorporationRelied on¶11
2021:DHC:2721
Praveen Garg v. South Delhi Municipal CorporationRelied on¶12
2022:DHC:1490
Yogesh Middha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (South)Referred¶13
2022:DHC:1684
Annu Arora v. Municipal Corporation of DelhiReferred¶13
W.P.(C) 15211/2022
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Vishwas Pathak
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.3
Respondent No.6
Sachin Datta
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
