Ms Sana Ali Khan through Its Power of Attorney Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

¶1

$~22

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 3328/2025 & CM APPL. 15751/2025, CM APPL. 19566/2025

¶4

MS SANA ALI KHAN THROUGH ITS POWER OF ATTORNEY

¶5

.....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Zafar Khurshid and Mr. Ankur Khurana, Advocates Mob: 9810271008 Email: [email protected]

¶7

versus

¶8

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. T. Singhdev, Advocate with Mr. Tarun Verma, Ms. Arzoo Singh and Ms. Komal Gupta, Advocates for applicant Mr. Vikas Chopra, SC for MCD Mob: 9212036118 Email: [email protected] Mr. Mayank Dawar, Advocate for R- 4 & 5 Mr. Hemant Chauhan, Advocate for R-6, 7 and 8. Mob: 9999036345

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

% 03.04.2025

¶12

The present petition has been filed to pass directions for restraining the respondents with respect to illegal and unauthorised construction being carried out in property, i.e., Khasra No. 664, admeasuring 2450 sq. yards, situated in the Revenue Estate of Neb Sarai, Hauz Khas, Tehsil Mehrauli,

¶13

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/04/2025 at 13:07:41

¶14

New Delhi, and also described as W-12B/9C Lane, Western Avenue, Sainik Farms, New Delhi .

¶15

Today, learned counsel appearing for Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), submits that property was inspected on 18^th March, 2025, and demolition action was taken on 19^th March, 2025. He submits that, during the course of demolition action, one room and boundary wall existing therein, have been demolished, wherein, the construction has been made inhabitable.

¶16

He submits that no further construction exists, therein.

¶17

Mr. T. Singhdev, Advocate has put in appearance before this Court and submits that he has filed an application for impleadment, and he represents the owner of the property in question, who is in possession of the same.

¶18

He submits that the petitioner alleging himself to be the owner, has filed this petition.

¶19

He further draws the attention of this Court to the signatures, which occur in the affidavit filed along with the present writ petition, and the applications, herein, as well as the signatures occurring in the vakalatnama.

¶20

By referring to the said signatures, he submits that the actual signatures of the power of attorney, i.e., Faizan Ali Khan, are totally different.

¶21

He, thus, submits that the signatures, under which the present petition has been filed, are clearly forged.

¶22

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that various misrepresentations have been made on behalf of the applicant and that no document pertaining to title or possession, has been placed on

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/04/2025 at 13:07:41

¶25

record, before this Court.

¶26

Since the MCD has already made a statement before this Court, as regards the action taken against the unauthorised construction, this Court is of the view that no further orders are required in the present matter.

¶27

This Court notes that there is no application for impleadment before this Court.

¶28

However, considering the fact that the present petition is being disposed of on account of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for MCD, learned counsel appearing for the applicant has been heard by this Court.

¶29

However, it is further clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards the title, ownership or possession of any of the parties.

¶30

In case, there is any property dispute between the petitioner and client of Mr. T. Singhdev, the same would be the subject matter of a civil dispute and this Court is not in a position to express any opinion or give any finding with respect thereto, in the present proceedings.

¶31

Accordingly, noting the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of, along with the pending applications.

¶32

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶33

APRIL 3, 2025 ak

¶34

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/04/2025 at 13:07:41

Ms Sana Ali Khan through Its Power of Attorney v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sana Ali Khan through Its Power of Attorney v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Chouhan Caters Vs Union of India & Ors.

Avaada Energy Private Limited Vs Central Transmission Utility of India Limited, & Anr.

Save India Foundation Vs Lg of Delhi & Ors.

Harjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Allahabad Bank @Indian Bank & Ors.

D. K. Gupta (Huf) Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi & Ors.

M/S Maruti Trading Co. Vs Sales Tax Officer, Class Ii, Avato & Anr.

M/S. Aom Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (Dtidcl) & Anr.

Ayush Garg Vs Reserve Bank of India and Others

M/S Chouhan Caters Vs Union of India & Ors.

Avaada Energy Private Limited Vs Central Transmission Utility of India Limited, & Anr.

Rajendra Singh Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation

Sagar Rajendra Kumar Mangla Vs Union of India & Ors.

Shri Om Prakash Jain Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ranjna Mallik and Anr. Vs Dy Commissioner MCD and Ors.