Dismissed

Ghulam Hasnain v. MCD & Anr.

Delhi HC13 Oct 2025W.P.(C)/15694/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking to stop unauthorized construction. The Court dismissed the petitioner's standing due to lack of ownership proof and directed the MCD to ensure repairs comply with UBBL, 2016, noting the occupant had already given an undertaking.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner not entitled to file WP; MCD directed to ensure repair work complies with UBBL 2016.

Ghulam Hasnain Vs MCD & Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~95

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 13^th October, 2025

¶4

- W.P.(C) 15694/2025 & CM APPL. 64178/2025

¶5

GHULAM HASNAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Suhail Khan, Ms. Vratika Mittal and Mr. Farid Ahmad Nizami, Advs. Mob: 9711190303 Email: [email protected] versus MCD & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anuj Gupta, Adv. for R-MCD (Through VC) Email: [email protected] Mr. Syed Husain Adil Taqui, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Amit Kumar Rana, G.P. for R-Delhi Police (Through VC) Mob: 8178303621 Email: [email protected] Ms. Himanshi, S.I., PS Jama Masjid Mob: 9350659627

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶8

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):

¶9

The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to stop the on-going illegal and unauthorized construction in property bearing No. 930, Chhatta Shah Ji, Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110006. 2. Responding to the present writ petition, learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), submits that the premise of

¶10

Signature Not Verified

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.10.2025 09:02:08

¶13

filing the present writ petition is that the petitioner claims to be one of the co-owners, of the property in question. However, no such documents have been placed on record.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the MCD further submits that pursuant to the complaint received, a Work Stop Notice dated 08^th October, 2025 was issued. One Ms. Alka Jain was found to be carrying out the construction work in the property in question. He submits that Ms. Alka Jain has given an undertaking that repair work shall be carried out only in terms of what is permissible under the Unified Building Bye-Laws for Delhi, 2016 (“UBBL, 2016”).

¶15

He submits that the MCD shall ensure that the repair work, being carried out by the said Ms. Alka Jain, is in terms of the UBBL, 2016.

¶16

On a pointed query by this Court, to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as to the documents pertaining to the co-ownership of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not have such documents. He submits that the petitioner has inherited the property from his great grandfather, who had given the property in question on rent to the predecessor-in-interest of the current occupant.

¶17

This Court notes the Memo of Parties, which shows that the current occupant of the property in question has not even been impleaded in the present writ petition.

¶18

Further, this Court, in writ proceedings, would not go into any disputed questions of facts. Any issue with regard to title or ownership of the property in question, can neither be raised, nor be considered in writ proceedings.

¶19

Signature Not Verified

¶20

Page 2 of 3

¶21

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.10.2025 09:02:08

¶22

Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner is not entitled to file the present writ petition.

¶23

This Court notes the submission made by learned counsel appearing for respondent-MCD, that the current occupant of the property in question, i.e., Ms. Alka Jain, has already given an undertaking that the repair work shall be carried out in terms of the permissible limits under the UBBL, 2016. 10. Accordingly, the MCD is directed to ensure that the repair/renovation work is carried out in accordance of UBBL, 2016.

¶24

Noting the aforesaid, the present writ petition, along with the pending application, is accordingly disposed of.

¶25

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶26

OCTOBER 13, 2025/ SK

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 5.10.2025 09:02:08

Ghulam Hasnain v. MCD & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghulam Hasnain v. MCD & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Enviro Tech Ventures Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Rajbir Singh Goyat Vs Atul Sibal and Ors.

Sumit Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.

Vindhyachal Expressway Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India through Ministry of Road Transport and Highways & Ors.

Jaswant Kumar Vs NTPC Limited through Its Chairman-Cum- Managing Director & Anr.

Lakshay Creation Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 60 1 Delhi

Sunil Bagai & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Col Narender Bhushan Retd

Akash Deep Maintenance Committee Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

Akash Deep Maintenance Committee Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

Govinda Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Sh Baidyanath Sah Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Sh Chandan Lal and Anr. Vs the Comissioner MCD and Ors.

South Delhi Municipal Corporation Vs the Motor and General Finance Ltd. and Anr.