Pooja Tokas Vs Minicipal Corporation of Delhi (through Its Commissioner) and Ors.

¶1

$~12 & 40

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of Decision: 19^th September, 2025

¶4

CONT.CAS(C) 1405/2025 & CM APPL. 58593/2025 POOJA TOKAS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. J.K. Sharma, Ms. Savita, Mr. Aman Goyal, Mr. Vinayak Sharma and Mr. Harsh Sharma, Advocates along with petitioner Mob: 9868410873

¶5

versus

¶6

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI (THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER) AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Akanksha Gupta, Advocate for MCD Mob: 9013799111 Email: [email protected] Ms. Archana Gaur, Ms. Ridhima Gaur, Ms. R. Baliyan and Ms. Bhumika Sharma, Advocates for R-3 Ms. Rachana Dalal, Advocate for R-4 (through VC) 40 + W.P.(C) 10855/2025 POOJA TOKAS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. J.K. Sharma, Ms. Savita, Mr. Aman Goyal, Mr. Vinayak Sharma and Mr. Harsh Sharma, Advocates along with petitioner Mob: 9868410873 versus

¶7

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS

¶8

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:09:10

¶9

CONT.CAS(C) 1405/2025 & W.P.(C) 10855/2025 Page 1 of 10

¶10

COMMISSIONER & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Akanksha Gupta, Advocate for MCD Mob: 9013799111 Email: [email protected] Mr. Vivek Anand Mishra, SPC for UOI with SI Vinod Kumar, PS Kishangarh Mob: 9811429926 Email: [email protected] Ms. Rachana Dalal, Advocate for R-4 (through VC)

¶11

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

¶12

The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondents to demolish the illegal construction, as raised by respondent no. 4 over property bearing Plot No. 109, Mandir Wali Gali, near old Canara Bank, Munirka Village, New Delhi.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has handed over copy of a complaint dated 17^th September, 2025 made to the Station House Officer (“SHO”), Police Station-Kishangarh, along with photographs, which are taken on record.

¶14

The photographs taken on 17^th September, 2025 show that the unauthorized construction in the property in question, is still being carried out.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the garb of the status quo order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 13586/2025 , the

¶16

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:09:10

¶17

CONT.CAS(C) 1405/2025 & W.P.(C) 10855/2025 Page 2 of 10

¶18

respondent no. 4 herein, is continuing with the unauthorized construction. 5. This Court notes that a Show Cause Notice dated 13^th June, 2025 has been issued with respect to unauthorized construction in the shape of fifth floor in the property in question. The Show Cause Notice dated 13^th June, 2025, is reproduced as under:

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:09:10

¶20

CONT.CAS(C) 1405/2025 & W.P.(C) 10855/2025 Page 3 of 10

¶21

This Court further takes note of the fact that a Demolition Order dated 08^th August, 2025 has also been passed by the MCD, with regard to unauthorized construction of fifth floor of the property in question, which is also identified as property No. 80-E . The Demolition Order dated 08^th August, 2025, issued by the Assistant Engineer, Building Department-I, South Zone, MCD, is reproduced as under:

¶22

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:09:10

¶23

CONT.CAS(C) 1405/2025 & W.P.(C) 10855/2025 Page 4 of 10

¶24

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:09:10

¶25

CONT.CAS(C) 1405/2025 & W.P.(C) 10855/2025 Page 5 of 10

¶26

This Court notes that the respondent no. 4 herein had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) 13586/2025 , wherein, vide order dated 04^th September, 2025, limited protection had been granted to the respondent

¶27

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:09:10

¶28

CONT.CAS(C) 1405/2025 & W.P.(C) 10855/2025 Page 6 of 10

¶29

no. 4/petitioner therein, on account of the fact that an appeal had been filed by the respondent no. 4 before the Appellate Tribunal MCD (“ATMCD”). Since, currently there is no Presiding Officer in the ATMCD, this Court had granted limited protection till the appeal of the respondent no. 4 herein, was heard by the ATMCD.

¶30

However, in the garb of any status quo order passed by this Court, the respondent no. 4 herein cannot take the advantage of the situation and carry out further unauthorized construction.

¶31

The photographs, as handed over to this Court, are reproduced as under:

¶32

Signature Not Verified

¶33

CONT.CAS(C) 1405/2025 & W.P.(C) 10855/2025 Page 7 of 10

¶34

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:09:10

¶35

This Court takes note of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3, i.e., SHO, Police Station-Kishangarh, that unauthorized construction was found to be going on in the property in question and the tools were seized.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the SHO, Police Station Kishangarh, has handed over a copy of the Status Report dated 18^th September, 2025, which is taken on record.

¶37

The said Status Report reads as under:

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

CONT.CAS(C) 1405/2025 & W.P.(C) 10855/2025 Page 8 of 10

¶40

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:09:10

¶41

Perusal of the Status Report filed by the SHO, Police StationKishangarh, clearly shows that labour activity was noticed at the premises and the concerned staff instructed the parties present at the spot to immediately stop the work. Further, the police also repeatedly cautioned the

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:09:10

¶44

CONT.CAS(C) 1405/2025 & W.P.(C) 10855/2025 Page 9 of 10

¶45

respondent no.4 from carrying out further construction.

¶46

Considering the aforesaid, it is clear that the respondent no. 4 herein, i.e., Vijay Tokas, has misused the protection granted by this Court vide order dated 04^th September, 2025 in W.P.(C) 13586/2025, in the petition where the respondent no. 4 herein, was the petitioner.

¶47

Accordingly, this Court recalls the interim protection granted to the respondent no. 4 herein, i.e., Vijay Tokas.

¶48

The respondent-MCD, with the assistance of SHO, Police StationKishangarh, is at liberty to take action against the unauthorized construction on the fifth floor, or any other further unauthorized construction that may be found in the property, having been carried out by respondent no. 4.

¶49

The MCD is bound to take requisite action expeditiously and in accordance with law. 18. The MCD is accordingly directed to file an Action Taken Report, in this regard.

¶50

With the aforesaid directions, the present petitions, along with the pending application, are accordingly disposed of.

¶51

For filing of the Action Taken Report by the MCD, list before the Registrar on 30^th October, 2025.

¶52

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶53

SEPTEMBER 19, 2025 ak

¶54

Signature Not Verified

¶55

CONT.CAS(C) 1405/2025 & W.P.(C) 10855/2025 Page 10 of 10

¶56

Digitally Signed By:HARIOM SHARMA Signing Da te:2 1.09.2025 19:09:10

Pooja Tokas v. Minicipal Corporation of Delhi (through Its Commissioner) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooja Tokas v. Minicipal Corporation of Delhi (through Its Commissioner) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Vijay Swarup Lau Vs Dr. Raghuram Aaygiri Registrar Delhi Bhartiya Chiktsa Parishad

Tauqir Alam Vs Ashwani Kumar & Ors.

Sharad Raj Vs Anjali Raj

Jagdish Singh Sudan Vs Indraprastha Power Generation Company Limited and Ors.

Baldev Raj ( Since Deceased ) through Lr Smt Veena Vs Dharmender & Anr.

Thomas Abraham & Anr. Vs Shri Harmeet Singh Kalka & Ors.

Dhanraj and Ors. Vs Mukesh Vats and Anr.

Habibur Rahman Vs Mr. Ashwani Kumar and Ors.

Sh. Abdullah Rasheed Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Tauqir Alam Vs Commissioner MCD & Ors.

Mohd. Asif Vs Mr. Parveen Kumar & Ors.

Krishna Devi and Ors. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Shruti Garg Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Pooja Tokas Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.