Disposed

Kishan Lal v. the Commissioner MCD & Ors.

Delhi HC19 Sept 2025W.P.(C)/5752/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ against unauthorized construction by non-respondents. Court held petitioner lacks locus standi as non-immediate neighbour but directed MCD to follow due process and granted liberty to actual owners to challenge plan revocation.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed due to lack of locus; MCD directed to follow due procedure; Owners granted liberty to challenge plan revocation.

Kishan Lal Vs the Commissioner MCD & Ors. — Municipal and Town Planning | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~74

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 19^th September, 2025

¶4

- W.P.(C) 5752/2025 & CM APPL. 26277/2025

¶5

KISHAN LAL .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Afroz Ahmed, Advocate M: 9899972202

¶7

versus

¶8

THE COMMISSIONER MCD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manu Sishodia and Ms. Hina Rajput, Advocates for R-4 along with respondent no. 4 in person Mob: 9810019309 Email: [email protected] Ms. Shilpa Dewan Addl. SC for MCD Mob: 9971192772 Email: [email protected]

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions for taking action against the illegal and unauthorized construction raised by respondent nos. 3 and 4 in property bearing no. 8731/14-B, Municipal Ward No. 83, Shidipura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 submits that the property of the petitioner is approximately 200-300 meters away from the property of the respondent no. 4.

¶13

Thus, he submits that the petitioner is not the owner of any property immediate to the property, which is subject matter of the present writ

¶14

Signature Not Verified

¶15

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 14:30:45

¶16

W.P.(C) 5752/2025 Page 1 of 10

¶17

petition, and that the present writ petition would not be maintainable on that account.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 also draws the attention of this Court to the table showing the complaints which have been filed by the petitioner, which is reproduced as under:

¶19

By referring to the aforesaid table, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 submits that the petitioner is in the habit of filing various complaints with respect to various properties, despite the fact that the petitioner is not the immediate neighbour to any of the said properties and is not affected personally by any unauthorized construction in the said properties.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) draws the attention of this Court to the Status Report dated 15^th September, 2025, filed on their behalf, relevant portion of which reads as under:

¶21

Signature Not Verified

¶22

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 14:30:45

¶23

W.P.(C) 5752/2025 Page 2 of 10

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 14:30:45

¶26

W.P.(C) 5752/2025 Page 3 of 10

¶27