Disposed

Vakeela Khatoon Malik v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Delhi HC18 May 2026W.P.(C)/1730/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought demolition of unauthorised construction by respondent no.4 endangering her shop. Status reports confirmed a work-stop notice had been issued and work stopped; counsel undertook construction only per sanctioned plan. Court disposed of the petition directing MCD to act in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; MCD directed to take action in accordance with law.

Vakeela Khatoon Malik Vs Municipal Corporation of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1730/2026 & CM APPL. 8452/2026, CM APPL. 8453/2026

¶4

VAKEELA KHATOON MALIK .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nadeem Rehmani, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Kumar and Mr. Vansh Luthra, Advocates for MCD. Ms. Chhavi Khandelwal, SPC for R- 3/SHO (through VC). Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, Advocate for R-4.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL O R D E R % 18.05.2026

¶8

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondents no.1 to 3 to demolish the unauthorised construction being carried out by the respondent no.4 in Property No. IX/4864 at village Seelampur, in the Abadi of Main Road, Seelampur, Delhi-110053 (‘subject property’).

¶9

It is stated that the petitioner runs a garment shop in a part of the ground floor of the subject property. The respondent no.4 has excavated a basement adjacent to the petitioner’s shop, endangering the foundations and stability of the shop structure of the petitioner. The demolition action, being carried out by the respondent no.4 in the subject property, is affecting the

¶10

W.P.(C) 1730/2026

¶11

Page 1 of 2

¶12

This is a digitally signed order.

¶13

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 21/05/2026 at 13:06:07

¶14

safety/security of the petitioner’s property.

¶15

It is stated that the petitioner has made a complaint dated 9^th January, 2026 to the authorities, but no remedial action has been taken.

¶16

Status report has been filed on behalf of the respondent-MCD.

¶17

As per the status report, a work stop notice has been issued on 5^th February, 2026. It is stated that in terms of the work-stop notice issued, work has been stopped at the subject property.

¶18

Counsel appearing for the respondent no.3/SHO, Police Station - Krishna Nagar submits that the work at the subject site has been stopped and a communication in this regard has been sent to the MCD.

¶19

Mr. Rajiv Kumar Ghawana, counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent no.4, also confirms that the work at the subject property has been stopped. He submits that the respondents have applied for sanction of plans with the respondent-MCD and no construction work shall be carried out except in accordance with the sanctioned plan.

¶20

In view thereof, the present writ petition is disposed of while directing the respondent-MCD to take action in accordance with law.

¶21

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶22

MAY 18, 2026 Rzu

¶23

W.P.(C) 1730/2026

¶24

Page 2 of 2

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

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 21/05/2026 at 13:06:07

Vakeela Khatoon Malik v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vakeela Khatoon Malik v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T.C.Jain & Ors. Vs Vice Chancellor, Delhi Univers

M.R.Giri Vs Registrar National Museum Inst

Tapash Datta Vs Indian Oil Corporation

Dr Virender Baboria Vs Union of India and Anr.

Kamlesh Singh and Anr. Vs Government of NCT of Delhi Ors.

Gti Infotel Private Limited Vs 1. Union of India & Ors.

Neena Bhasin Vs Union of India & Ors.

Vasi Vs Muncipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Steel Crete Pvt. Ltd. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Ram Pal Vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. through Its Deputy General Manager & Anr.

Sanjeev Goel Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Subhash Chand Garg Vs Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd.

Pritish Ranjan Dash President, Maa Maati Party Vs Election Commission of India

Residential Welfare Association Rwa Vs Union of India & Ors.