Disposed¶29

Meena Babbar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC22 Apr 2025W.P.(C)/4024/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; W.P.(C) 4024/2025; Meena Babbar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.; illegal/unauthorised construction; structural alteration; Unified Building Bye-Laws Clause 2.0.1(d); non-load bearing wall; MCD affidavit/status report; disputed questions of fact; Statutory Authority certification; remedies in accordance with law; Tagore Garden FC-130; writ disposed 22.04.2025.

What did the court decide?

No directions issued restraining respondent no. 2; writ petition, along with pending applications, disposed of after noting MCD's affidavit/stand, petitioner being left free to seek remedies in accordance with law. ¶29

Meena Babbar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent no. 2 was carrying out illegal construction on the ground floor of property no. FC-130, Tagore Garden, without obtaining the requisite permission, and altering the basic structure of the ground floor. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Once the Statutory Authority (MCD) has submitted, by way of affidavit, that the renovation work is permissible under law, this Court will not go into disputed questions of fact.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

Considering MCD's categorical stand that only minor renovation was done (shifting of a non-load bearing wall by approximately two feet, permitted under Clause 2.0.1(d) of the Unified Building Bye-Laws, requiring no permission), no further directions were required to be passed by this Court.

¶24

Key takeaways

If aggrieved by any statements made by the MCD, the petitioner is at liberty to seek remedies in accordance with law.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition disposed (Mini Pushkarna, J, 22.04.2025, Delhi HC): Petitioner sought directions to restrain respondent no. 2 from alleged illegal construction/structural alteration of the ground floor of property FC-130, Tagore Garden. Following this Court's order dated 01.04.2025, MCD filed an affidavit/status report stating categorically that only minor renovation had been carried out — the non-load bearing wall was shifted by approximately two feet, permissible under Clause 2.0.1(d) of the Unified Building Bye-Laws — and that no MCD permission was required. The Court held that where the Statutory Authority certifies by affidavit that the work is permissible under law, it will not enter disputed questions of fact; the petitioner, if aggrieved by MCD's statements, may seek remedies in accordance with law. Petition and pending applications disposed.

¶1

$~3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4024/2025

¶4

MEENA BABBAR .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Suruchi Gera, Proxy Counsel (through VC)

¶5

versus

¶6

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

Through: Mr. Vishal Chadha, Advocate for respondent no. 1/MCD. (M): 9810641379 Email:

¶9

[email protected] Mr. Puneet Yadav, SPC with Mr. Kapil Dev Yadav, GP, SI Delhi Police for respondent no. 4. (M): 9999388384 Email:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶13

O R D E R % 22.04.2025

¶14

The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to restrain respondent no. 2 from carrying out illegal construction on the ground floor of the property bearing no. FC-130, Tagore Garden , without obtaining the requisite permission and from altering the basic structure of the ground floor.

¶15

This Court notes that pursuant to the directions of this Court vide order dated 01^st April, 2025, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 01/07/2025 at 20:57:49

¶18

Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), wherein, it has been stated as follows:

¶19

“xxx xxx xxx

¶20

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 01/07/2025 at 20:57:49

¶21

xxx xxx xxx”

¶22

A perusal of the aforesaid Status Report filed on behalf of respondent/MCD, shows that it is the categorical stand of the MCD that only minor renovation work has been carried out by the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 has shifted the non-load bearing wall by approximately two feet, which, as per the MCD, is permitted in terms of Clause 2.0.1(d) of the Unified Building Bye-Laws.

¶23

It is further the case of the MCD that no permission is required from the MCD for the aforementioned work.

¶24

Accordingly, considering the aforesaid stand of the MCD, no further directions are required to be passed by this Court.

¶25

However, at this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has objection to the affidavit filed on behalf of the MCD.

¶26

This Court is of the view that once the Statutory Authority has submitted, by way of affidavit, that the renovation work is permissible under law, this Court will not go into any disputed questions of facts.

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 01/07/2025 at 20:57:49

¶29

In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by any statements made by the MCD, the petitioner is at liberty to seek remedies, in accordance with law. 9. Noting the aforesaid, the present writ petition, along with the pending applications, is accordingly, disposed of.

¶30

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶31

APRIL 22, 2025 ak

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

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 01/07/2025 at 20:57:49

Meena Babbar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Babbar v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gsr Infocom Pvt. Ltd. Vs Goods and Services Tax Officer Ward 103 Delhi & Ors.

Puran Store through Its Partner Hari Ram Agarwal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 43 - 1 & Ors.

Mamta Goyal Vs Punjab National Bank & Anr.

Shri Atul Aggarwal Vs Union of India & Ors.

Anand Tyagi Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Mohammed Afzal (Trade Name) Indian Enterprises Vs Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato and Anr.

Carol Infrastructure Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 27, Delhi & Anr.

Dayanand Bainda Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 28 (5), Delhi

Hind Express Road Carriers Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. Vs Ganesh Kumar & Ors.

Alimuddin Vs Bses Yamuna Power Limited

Dr Sanjay Wadhawan Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Allahabad Bank Vs N.D.M.C.

Raj Shekar Radha Krishnan Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation and Ors.