Mr Raman Malik Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mr Raman Malik Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

With the aforesaid directions (MCD to take into account the petitioner's mutation and the judgment in Ashok Kapoor (Supra) while considering the application for Sanctioned Building Plan; any objection to be communicated to the petitioner with opportunity to file a reply), the writ petition along with the pending application was disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction should issue to respondent no. 1 (MCD) to sanction the Building Plan of plot bearing No. C-100, Anand Niketan, New Delhi. +1 more

Court's answer

At the time of considering the petitioner's application for Sanctioned Building Plan, MCD shall take into account the mutation in favour of the petitioner and also the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Kapoor (Supra).

Ratio / Principle

In case of any objection, the same shall be duly communicated to the petitioner, who shall be granted opportunity to file any reply in regard thereto.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Mini Pushkarna, J., oral), decision dated 16.10.2025 — W.P.(C) 16024/2025 & CM APPL. 65636/2025: Petitioner Raman Malik, recorded owner of 50% of the front portion of plot No. C-100, Anand Niketan, New Delhi (measuring 423.20 sq. yards), mutated in his favour vide DDA order dated 26.03.2009 (Annexure P-5), sought directions to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to sanction the Building Plan for the plot. MCD responded that the petitioner had applied online for a fresh Building Plan on 07.10.2025, that the application had been processed, and that an appropriate order would be passed within the stipulated time in accordance with law. Counsel for the petitioner relied on Ashok Kapoor and Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, MANU/DE/1675/2003 (Annexure P-11), for the submission that where property is segregated into portions and mutated accordingly, all co-owners need not sign the Building Plan. Directing that, in considering the sanction application, MCD take into account the mutation in the petitioner's favour and the judgment in Ashok Kapoor (Supra), and that any objection be duly communicated to the petitioner with an opportunity to file a reply, the Court disposed of the writ petition along with the pending application.

$~80

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 16.10.2025

- W.P.(C) 16024/2025 & CM APPL. 65636/2025

MR RAMAN MALIK .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Mr. Jay Bhardwaj, Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Ms. Anshika Juneja and Ms. Nikita Tiwari, Advocates Mob: 9599503262 Email: [email protected]

versus

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, ASC for NDMC Mob: 9810031680 Email: [email protected] Mr. Abhishek Mahajan, Advocate for R-1 Mob: 9810981062 Email: [email protected]

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (ORAL):

The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondent no. 1, i.e., Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), to sanction the Building Plan of plot bearing No. C-100, Anand Niketan, New Delhi .

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the property in question is a big plot of land measuring 423.20 sq. yards and that the petitioner is the owner of 50% of the front portion of the said property.

Signature Not Verified

Page 1 of 3

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 7.10.2025 21:33:50

Attention of this Court has been drawn to the mutation in favour of the petitioner, which has been effected vide order dated 26^th March, 2009 passed by the Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”). The said document, attached as Annexure P-5 to the present petition, is reproduced as under:

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 7.10.2025 21:33:50

Page 2 of 3

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment, attached as Annexure P-11 , titled as “ Ashok Kapoor and Ors. Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi ”, reported as MANU/DE/1675/2003.

By referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that where the property is segregated into different portions and mutated accordingly, there is no requirement of all the coowners to sign the Building Plan.

Responding to the present writ petition, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1-MCD submits that the petitioner has applied online for a fresh Building Plan on 07^th October, 2025. Furthermore, the application of the petitioner for Sanctioned Building Plan has been processed and that appropriate order shall be passed, within the stipulated time, in accordance with law.

Considering the submissions made before this Court, it is directed that at the time of considering the application of the petitioner for Sanctioned Building Plan, the MCD shall take into account, the mutation in favour of the petitioner, as reproduced, hereinabove, and also the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok Kapoor (Supra) .

Needless to state, in case of any objection, the same shall be duly communicated to the petitioner, who shall be granted opportunity to file any reply, in regard thereto.

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

OCTOBER 16, 2025/ SK

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:1 7.10.2025 21:33:50

Page 3 of 3