Disposed¶13

Naim v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Delhi HC26 May 2025W.P.(C)/7198/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi High Court; W.P.(C) 7198/2025; Naim v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi; unauthorized construction; demolition; sealing; MCD; Batla House; Jamia Nagar; concealment of facts; suppression; Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC; Section 151 CPC; rejection of plaint; Civil Suit No. 1490/2023; CONT.CAS(C) 1255/2023; contempt; Mini Pushkarna; disposed; writ petition; Plot No. P-100; Nafees Road.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the MCD to take requisite action against the unauthorized construction in accordance with law; the writ petition, along with pending applications, stands disposed of. ¶13

Naim Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others — Delhi HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the MCD to take requisite action against the unauthorized construction in accordance with law; the writ petition, along with pending applications, stands disposed of.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on account of the petitioner's concealment of the filing and dismissal of the earlier civil suit (Civil Suit No. 1490/2023). +1 more

¶11

Court's answer

In the ordinary circumstances the Court would have dismissed the present writ petition only on account of concealment of the facts by the petitioner.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

Despite the concealment, since respondent no. 3 himself has been carrying out extensive unauthorized construction and MCD has taken requisite action against the same, the Court noted that action is required to be taken in the property in question.

¶11

Key takeaways

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent no. 1/MCD, the Court directed that requisite action be taken by the MCD in accordance with law.ratio¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Mini Pushkarna, J.) disposed of W.P.(C) 7198/2025 filed by Naim seeking directions to MCD and respondent no. 4 to stop and demolish unauthorized construction by respondent nos. 2 and 3 at Plot No. P-100, Nafees Road, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi. Respondent no. 3 produced Civil Suit No. 1490/2023 (Nain v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors., Senior Civil Judge, Saket) with a similar prayer, whose plaint was rejected on 21.05.2025 under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 CPC, and argued the writ petition was liable to be dismissed for non-disclosure; the petitioner relied on the disclosure recorded in the order dated 20.01.2025 in CONT.CAS(C) 1255/2023. The Court held that ordinarily it would have dismissed the petition solely for concealment, but since respondent no. 3 himself had been carrying out extensive unauthorized construction (property sealed on 24.02.2024; MCD alleging the seal was broken), it directed MCD to take requisite action in accordance with law and disposed of the petition with pending applications.

¶1

$~67

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 7198/2025 & CM APPL. 32397/2025, CM APPL. 32398/2025

¶4

NAIM .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Aishwarya Dobhal and Mr. Albar Qureshi, Advs. M: 9557844741 Email: [email protected]

¶5

versus

¶6

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND OTHERS

¶7

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Kapil Dutta and Mr. Vansh Luthra, Advs. for MCD M: 9811135509 Email: [email protected] Mr. Shekhar Dasi, Mr. Mohd. Talha, Mr. Ayush Dasi and Mr. Deepesh Kasana, Advs. for R-3. M: 9911554988 Email: [email protected]

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶9

O R D E R % 26.05.2025

¶10

The present writ petition has been filed for directions to the respondent nos.1 and 4, to immediately stop and demolish the illegal and unauthorized construction being carried out by respondent nos. 2 and 3, in the property bearing Plot No. P-100, situated at Nafees Road, Batla House, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi – 110025, admeasuring 500 Sq. Yds., falling under

¶11

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 20:26:01

¶12

Khasra No. 213, Jogabai Village, Jamia Nagar, Tehsil Defence Colony, New Delhi – 110025 .

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 on advance notice, submits that the present petitioner had earlier filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 1490/2023 titled as Nain Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors. in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, South-East District, Saket Courts. He has handed a copy of the said suit, to submit that similar prayer, was made in the said suit also.

¶14

Further, he has also handed over copy of the order dated 21^st May, 2025, passed in the aforementioned Civil Suit No. 1490/2023 , wherein, the Senior Civil Judge, South-East, Saket Courts, New Delhi, has allowed the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), read with Section 151 CPC, for rejection of the plaint.

¶15

Thus, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 submits that the petitioner herein has no right over the property in question, as the suit filed on behalf of the petitioner herein, also decided the issue of title of the petitioner.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 submits that the petitioner has not disclosed the fact of filing and dismissal of the said suit. He, thus, submits that present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

¶17

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 20^th January, 2025, passed in CONT.CAS(C) 1255/2023 , wherein, the said fact of filing of the said suit, has been disclosed. She submits that though in the present writ petition, the said fact may not have been disclosed, however, all the requisite orders,

¶18

¶19

have been filed, which clearly record that a suit had been filed earlier by the petitioner.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1-Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), submits that the entire building, i.e., property in question, is in the nature of unauthorized construction. He submits that he has handed over to this Court, the Status Report filed on behalf of the MCD on 26^th February, 2024, in the earlier proceedings, i.e., CONT.CAS(C) 1255/2023. The said Status Report is taken on record. 8. He submits that various actions have been taken against the unauthorized construction existing in the property, after following the due process of law. He further submits that the property in question was sealed at the main entry of the ground floor and the main entry of the basement on th 24 February, 2024, except two shops at the ground floor. 9. He further submits that respondent no. 3 herein, who is constructing the building in the property in question, has broken the seal and had repaired the demolished portion of the building. He, thus, submits that further action is being taken by the MCD, which is fixed for today itself. 10. However, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 refutes the contention of breaking of the seal. 11. Considering the submissions made before this Court, in the ordinary circumstances, this Court would have dismissed the present writ petition only on account of concealment of the facts by the petitioner. However, considering the fact that since in the present case the respondent no. 3 himself has been carrying out extensive unauthorized construction, and MCD has taken requisite action against the same, this Court notes that action is required to be taken in the property in question.

¶21

¶22

Considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 1/MCD, it is directed that requisite action be taken by the MCD, in accordance with law.

¶23

Noting the aforesaid, the present writ petition, along with the pending applications, stands disposed of.

¶24

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶25

MAY 26, 2025 /KR

¶26

Naim v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naim v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

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

M/S a.P.Apparels Vs the Labour Commissioner & Ors.

Siddhartha Kothari Vs Commissioner of Income Tax International Taxation 3 & Anr.

Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Vs Vodafone Idea Limited

Sahil Arora Vs Commissioner of Excise, Entt. and Luxury Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors.

M v Metals through Its Proprietor Mr. Rahul Jain 2018 19 Vs Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Others

Chetan Asrani Vs the Sales Tax Officer Class II Ward 96

S G N Public School Vs Central Board of Secondary Education

Gmr Rajamundhry Energy Ltd. & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Smt Asha Gandhi and Another Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Sanjeev Bhati Vs Smt Kamal Saini & Ors.

Shrimati Geeta Tyagi and Another Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Kaushalya Meena Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sanjay Sachdeva Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Meena Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.