Court dismissed the NDMC's writ petition challenging a judgment that held the Monitoring Committee lacked jurisdiction to seal an institutional property and the NDMC could not levy penalty under the Master Plan 2021 for such premises.
Writ petition dismissed; direction to NDMC to de-seal the premises within four weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
% Judgment reserved on: 29th July, 2026 Judgment pronounced on: 21st August, 2026
# C�R �o. DLHC010471122022
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Puja S. Kalra, Mr. Virendra Singh, Advocates. Mr. Yashpal, AE, NDMC.
versus
QUAMI EKTA TRUST & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Prateek Gupta, Mr. Pulkit Agarwal and Ms. Vishakha Kaushik, Advocates for R-1. Mr. Amit Singh Chauhan, Mr. Kuldeep Kasana and Mr. Udit Chauhan, Advocates for R-2/ Monitoring Committee. Mr. Balendu Shekhar, CGSC with Mr. Krishna Chaitanya, Mr. Raj Kumar Maurya and Mr. Divyansh Singh Dev, Advocates for UoI.
CORAM: HO�’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BA�SAL
JUDGME�T
AMIT BA�SAL, J.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 17087/2022
Page 1 of 17
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 1.08.2026 12:09:48
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi (‘Principal District and Sessions Judge’) in MCD Appeal No.03/2018.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 17087/2022
Page 2 of 17
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 1.08.2026 12:09:48
subject property. Accordingly, notices were sent to the respondent trust alleging breach.
3.5 On 13th January, 2009, the basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor of the subject property of the respondent trust were sealed by the NDMC at the behest of the Monitoring Committee as the building was being put to use contrary to the sanctioned use.
3.6 On 28th February, 2009, the ground floor was de-sealed under the orders of Monitoring Committee as the same was being used for permissible activities.
3.7 On 26th August, 2009, the L&DO sent a letter to the respondent trust demanding a sum of Rs.24,47,906/- as penalty/misuse charges. On 28th August, 2009, the aforesaid amount was paid by respondent trust.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 17087/2022
Page 3 of 17
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 1.08.2026 12:09:48
impugned order held that the Monitoring Committee was not empowered to inspect any premises meant for institutional purposes and therefore, its direction to seal the property was non-est in law. The sealing action was carried without issuance of any notice to the respondent trust.
SUBMISSIO�S O�BEHALF OF PARTIES
Submissions on behalf of the petitioner/NDMC
11.1 The Principal District and Sessions Judge did not have the jurisdiction to question the action of the Monitoring Committee. The impugned order has misinterpreted the order passed by the Supreme Court on 14th August, 2020 in MC Mehta v. Union of India1 . The impugned order ignored the
1 2020 SCC OnLine SC 648.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17087/2022 By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 1.08.2026 12:09:48
Page 4 of 17
subsequent directions of the Supreme Court on 13th September, 2022, whereby a Judicial Committee was constituted to examine the challenges to directions of the Monitoring Committee.
11.2 It is an admitted position that the respondent trust filed I.A. 71/2022 before the Supreme Court in MC Mehta v. Union of India , challenging the sealing of the subject property. This was an acknowledgment that the sealing action flows from direction of the Monitoring Committee. Therefore, the appropriate forum to challenge the sealing action was before the Supreme Court.
11.3 The finding in the impugned order that the Monitoring Committee did not have the jurisdiction to take action against institutional lands is erroneous. The impugned order incorrectly holds that the jurisdiction of the Monitoring Committee was only in respect of misuse of residential premises and did not extend to institutional premises. There was nothing in that order of the Supreme Court to exclude institutional premises from the oversight by the Monitoring Committee.
11.4 The respondent trust sublet more than the permitted areas to commercial entities in violation of the provisions of Master Plan of Delhi, 2021 (‘MPD, 2021’) and the subletting guidelines dated 17th January, 2008. The Monitoring Committee inspected the subject property and accordingly, the subject property was sealed.
11.5 Even through L&DO recovered misuse charges from the respondent trust, this did not extinguish the NDMC’s power to demand misuse charges. 11.6 Both L&DO and the NDMC operate in distinct and independent legal spheres and the action by one does not eclipse the statutory powers of the
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 17087/2022
Page 5 of 17
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 1.08.2026 12:09:48
other. L&DO acts as a lessor and enforces lease conditions governing allotment of government land, whereas NDMC being the civic body, is entrusted with enforcement of planning laws, regulation of land use and building activity. Therefore, even when L&DO condones or regularises a breach, the same does not extinguish the misuse under MPD, 2021. Reliance in this regard is placed on the judgment in Asha Rani v. NDMC & Ors2 .
11.7 The respondent trust did not take any permission from NDMC for conversion of property from institutional to commercial use, which is actionable under Section 250 of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (‘NDMC Act’). NDMC was well within its power to levy misuse charges along with penalty, in terms of Clause 15.9 of the MPD, 2021.
11.8 In compliance with the order dated 7th May, 2007 passed by the Supreme Court in MC Mehta v. Union of India (supra), the NDMC had given wide publicity through electronic media and print media and public notice dated 29th May, 2007 was issued in leading newspapers for removal of misuse. Despite the same the respondent trust did not stop the misuse.
Submissions on behalf of respondent trust
12.1 The Supreme Court vide its order dated 30th April, 2013 in MC Mehta v. Union of India had directed that the application filed by the respondent trust, along with other pending applications be treated as an appeal under Section 254 of the NDMC Act. In furtherance to the said directions, the ATMCD was directed to hear these applications as appeals preferred against
2 221 (2015) DLT 730.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17087/2022 By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 1.08.2026 12:09:48
Page 6 of 17
an order of sealing. Therefore, against the order passed by the Tribunal under Section 254 of the NDMC Act, the respondent filed a statutory appeal under Section 256 of the NDMC Act before the Principal District and Sessions Judge. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the Principal District and Sessions Judge did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate the said appeal.
12.2 The directions passed by the Supreme Court on 28th January, 2019 and 13th September, 2022 are not applicable as these directions to approach Supreme Court/Judicial Committee were in respect of orders passed by the Monitoring Committee. In the present case, the Supreme Court itself vide order dated 30th April, 2013 had directed that application filed by the respondent trust would be treated as an appeal under Section 254 of the NDMC Act.
12.3 The sealing action in the present case was on account of violation of Clause XXIV of the MoA dated 12th March, 1992 and not MPD, 2021. Reliance in this regard has been made on the file notings filed by the respondent trust ( page 116 of the documents filed by respondent trust ). This fact is also evident from the communication dated 3rd June, 2009 sent by NDMC to L&DO.
12.4 The respondent trust having paid the entire misuse charges of Rs.24,47,946/- which were levied by L&DO on account of violation of terms of the MoA dated 12th March, 1992, the NDMC could not have sealed the subject property.
12.5 No notice was ever issued by the NDMC or respondent no.2/Monitoring Committee for violation of MPD with respect to the subject property.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 17087/2022
Page 7 of 17
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 1.08.2026 12:09:48
12.6 In the present case, the subject property is neither situated in the residential area nor was it allotted for residential purposes. The Supreme Court vide its order dated 14th August, 2020 has held that Monitoring Committee was appointed only to check the misuser of residential properties for commercial purposes. Monitoring Committee could not have taken action in respect of institutional premises.
12.7 Chapter 15 of the MPD, 2021 is not applicable to the subject property as the subject property does not come under the ambit of a residential property. Therefore, the penalty imposed in terms of Clause 15.9 of Chapter 15 of MPD, 2021 cannot be imposed.
12.8 Clause 15.9 of the MPD, 2021 gave an option to regularize the breach on or before 30th June, 2009. However, in the present case, there was no occasion for the respondent no.1 to regularize in terms of Clause 15.9 as the subject property was sealed on 13th January, 2009. Therefore, the penalty of Rs.39,93,818/- is unsustainable.
A�ALYSIS A�D FI�DI�GS
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 17087/2022
Page 8 of 17
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 1.08.2026 12:09:48
“8(i) We had, as noticed above, by our order dated 24.3.2006, appointed the Monitoring Committee for looking into the aspect of sealing premises, which were being put to non-conforming user. The Monitoring Committee had ordered the sealing of those premises. Against which, a large number of the applicants have approached the Court (by filing writ petitions which were converted into IAS, or by filing IAs) praying for desealing. All the said IAs are still pending consideration before this Court. We propose to issue appropriate directions in the said IAs as well.
(ii) We deem it appropriate to direct, that all these orders of sealing passed by the Monitoring Committee, and the sealing undertaken thereunder, shall be deemed to have been passed by the concerned statutory authority exercise of powers conferred under Section 345A of the MCD Act, or under Section 250 of the NDMC Act, or in terms of Section 31A of the Delhi Development Act.
(iii) In terms of the provisions of Section 347B of the MCD Act or under Section 254 of the NDMC Act or under Section 31C of the DDA Act, an appeal lies to an Appellate Tribunal against an order passed under Sections 345A, 250 and 31A of the three Acts respectively.
(iv) These IAs which are pending before this Court for desealing of premises, on one ground or the other, will be treated as appeals under Sections 347B, 254 and 31C of the respective Acts (NDMC Act/MCD Act/ DDA Act) before the respective Appellate Tribunal constituted under Sections 347A of the MCD Act, Section 253 of the NDMC Act and Section 31B of the Act . The Registry will transmit all these IAs (including objections, if any) to the respective Tribunals under the MCD, NDMC and DDA Acts. The above Tribunals shall then hear these applications, as appeals preferred against an order of sealing, and decide the same on their own merits, in accordance with law. Parties will be at liberty to file additional affidavits/counter-affidavits and additional documents with the leave of the concerned Tribunal.
(v) The Monitoring Committee reports as regards all these individual
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 17087/2022
Page 9 of 17
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 1.08.2026 12:09:48
IAs will also be placed before the Appellate Tribunal. The Monitoring Committee will be represented by a panel lawyer before the Tribunal (to present the view point expressed in the orders passed by the Monitoring Committee). … All these IAs shall be disposed of, as far as possible, within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the papers, and this order. ”
[emphasis supplied]
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 17087/2022
Page 10 of 17
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 1.08.2026 12:09:48
“In view of the above, you, are therefore requested to provide the necessary details/information regarding recovery of misuse charges on account of violation of the terms and conditions of lease deed , if already deposited with your office by the party within 7 days.”
[emphasis supplied]
“XXIV The Licencee shall not have any right or interest in the said premises and part with possession thereof and shall not transfer or assign, this agreement, or any part hereof, in any manner.”
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 17087/2022 By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 1.08.2026 12:09:48
Page 11 of 17
Committee was only in respect of misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes.
“ 93. It is apparent from the various orders passed by this Court from time to time and from the various reports of the Monitoring Committee that it was never authorised by this Court to take action against the residential premises that were not being used for commercial purposes. It was appointed only to check the misuser of the residential properties for commercial purposes. After that, this Court directed that the Monitoring Committee should also look into the matter of “encroachment on the public land” and “unauthorised colonies” that
3 (2006) 3 SCC 399.
4 2020 SCC OnLine SC 648.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 17087/2022
Page 12 of 17
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 1.08.2026 12:09:48
have come up on the public land and were wholly unauthorised without sanction. At no point in time, this Court had empowered the Monitoring Committee to act vis-à-vis to the purely residential premises .
94. The power of sealing of property carries civil consequences. A person can be deprived of the property by following a procedure in accordance with law. The Monitoring Committee is not authorised to take action concerning the residential premises situated on the private land. If there is unauthorised construction or in case of deviation, the requisite provisions are under the DMC Act, such as Sections 343, 345, 347-A and 347-B. The mode of action and adjudication under the Act is provided including appellate provisions and that of the Tribunal. It would not be appropriate to the Monitoring Committee to usurp statutory powers and act beyond authority conferred upon it by the Court. The Monitoring Committee could not have sealed the residential premises, which were not misused for the commercial purpose as done vide Report No. 149, nor it could have directed the demolition of those residential properties.
97. After going through the report of the Monitoring Committee and other reports which have been relied upon by the Amicus Curiae, there is no scintilla of doubt that the Monitoring Committee in the past at any point of time did not seal any residential premises being used for residential purposes, situated on the private land nor it could have ordered demolition. The “caption” of the various reports of Monitoring Committee i.e. “PRELIMINARY REPORT OF THE MONITORING COMMITTEE FOR SEALING OF COMMERCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL PREMISES” makes it absolutely clear that Monitoring Committee did not entertain any doubt about the purpose for which it was constituted . ”
[emphasis supplied] 29. Since the Monitoring Committee came into existence pursuant to order dated 24th March, 2006 passed by the Supreme Court in M.C. Mehta v. Union of India and its jurisdiction was defined in terms of the said order, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the Monitoring Committee did not have the jurisdiction to direct sealing of properties in institutional areas.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 17087/2022
Page 13 of 17
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 1.08.2026 12:09:48
clear that the subject property is located in an institutional area. Therefore, Monitoring Committee did not have jurisdiction to seal the subject property. 31. The Supreme Court in MC Mehta v. Union of India5 has held that the power to seal is one that visits a person with ‘ serious civil consequences ’ and deprivation of property cannot be exercised except strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the statute.
“… The misuse of premises shall include any unauthorized construction
& commercial activity in Lutyens’ Bungalow Zone area, use of residential property for commercial purpose or change in use of premises from parking/ storage to office/ commercial, etc.
*** *** ***
This action is also in compliance of the Judgment dated 16.02.2006 and direction dated 07.05.2006 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in IA No. 22 In WP (C) No. 4677 of 1985 etc. In the matter of MC Mehta v. Union of India & Others, wherein it has been directed that the sealing for misuse of the premises has to be carried out in the area governed by New Delhi Municipal Council. ”
[emphasis supplied]
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 17087/2022
Page 14 of 17
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 1.08.2026 12:09:48
“ 15.1 GOVERNING PRINCIPLES FOR MIXED USE
i. Mixed use means the provision for non-residential activity in residential premises.
ii. The policy aims to balance the socio-economic need for such activity and the environmental impact of the said activity in residential areas .
iii. Mixed use allows access to commercial activities in the proximity of the residences and reduces the need for commuting across zones in the city. However, at the same time, it needs to be regulated in order to manage and mitigate the associated adverse impact related to congestion, increased traffic and increased pressure on civic amenities. iv. The over-riding principles for permitting mixed use are the need to acknowledge and make adequate provision for meeting community needs, mitigating environmental impact and providing for safe and convenient circulation and parking.
v. Mixed-use, (including small shops as per para 15.6.3.) shall not be permitted in the Lutyens’ Bungalow Zone, Civil Lines bungalow zone, government housing, institutional/staff housing of public and private agencies and buildings/precincts listed by the Heritage Conservation Committee. ”
[emphasis supplied]
5 2020 SCC OnLine SC 648.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 17087/2022
Page 15 of 17
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 1.08.2026 12:09:48
“(vi) ³[In respect of residential premises already under mixed use on 7.2.2007 in Special area, the owner / allottee / occupier of the plotted development shall be required to declare such mixed use by filling up a form in this respect and depositing it with local body concerned and pay one time registration charges and conversion charges without penalty on or before 30.6.2009 at the rate to be notified with the approval of the Government from time to time.]”
CO�CLUSIO�
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 17087/2022
Page 16 of 17
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 1.08.2026 12:09:48
AMIT BA�SAL (JUDGE)
AUGUST 21, 2026
Vivek/-
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 17087/2022
Page 17 of 17
Digitally Signed By:AANCHAL TAGGAR Signing Da te:2 1.08.2026 12:09:48
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Monitoring Committee appointed by the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to order sealing of institutional premises.
Whether the NDMC had jurisdiction to impose penalties under Chapter 15 of the Master Plan 2021 for misuse of institutional land.
Whether the impugned judgment set aside by the NDMC in the Principal District and Sessions Courts was without jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
MC Mehta v. Union of IndiaDistinguished¶28
MC Mehta v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 648 · Who else cites this
MC Mehta v. Union of IndiaDistinguished¶31
MC Mehta v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 648 · Who else cites this
Asha Rani v. NDMC & Ors.Relied on¶11
Asha Rani v. NDMC & Ors., 221 (2015) DLT 730 · Who else cites this
New Delhi Municipal Council
Quami Ekta Trust
Union of India
Amit Bansal
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
