Disposed

Urvashi Verma v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Delhi HC18 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/2315/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Resident petitioned against alleged unauthorised construction on a Vasant Kunj plot without sanction plan, including encroachment on a public road. MCD confirmed prior demolition orders and planned action; court directed MCD to act lawfully and SHO to prevent fresh construction and provide police force for demolition.

What did the court decide?

Directions to MCD to take action per law and to SHO to stop fresh construction and supply police force on demolition date.

Urvashi Verma Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi… — Municipal and Town Planning | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~85

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 2315/2026 & CM APPL. 11210/2026, CM APPL. 11211/2026

¶4

URVASHI VERMA .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Pallav Sisodia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik and Ms. Prachi Sohi, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kapil Dutta, standing counsel for MCD.

¶8

Mr. Alok Dev, Advocate for R- 2/SHO (through VC). Ms. Smita Maan, Advocate for R-3.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL O R D E R % 18.02.2026

¶10

The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶11

W.P.(C) 2315/2026

¶12

Page 1 of 3

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

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 20/02/2026 at 13:09:44

¶15

It is stated that petitioner is a resident of Flat No. 3075, Pocket D- 3/4, Church Road, Vasant Kunj and resides in close proximity to the subject land over which the unauthorised construction is going on, being Khasra No.31/14, Plot No.3 situated at Prabhu Marg, Church Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi- 110070.

¶16

It is the petitioner’s grievance that the respondent no.3 is raising unauthorised construction over the subject land without any sanction plan. The respondent no.3 has encroached upon the adjoining public road by installing gates and deploying private security personnel to prevent free movement. It is stated that despite an earlier demolition carried out by the respondent no.1/MCD at the subject land in furtherance of the demolition order dated 22^nd November 2023, the respondent no.3 has again raised construction over the subject land.

¶17

The petitioner has filed complaints dated 10^th February 2026 made to the respondent no.1/MCD and respondent no.2/SHO in respect of the aforesaid unauthorised construction. Along with the petition, the photographs of the said illegal construction have also been attached.

¶18

Issue Notice.

¶19

Notice is accepted by counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶20

Mr. Pallav Sisodia, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that the petitioner only wishes to press prayer ‘a’ above.

¶21

Mr. Kapil Dutta, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1/MCD, submits that a demolition order against the subject property was passed on 4^th July 2019 and 22^nd November 2023. It is submitted that the property was inspected on 4^th February 2026 and it came to light that fresh construction has been raised in the subject property. Once again, after

¶22

W.P.(C) 2315/2026

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

This is a digitally signed order.

¶25

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 20/02/2026 at 13:09:44

¶26

issuance of a show cause notice, a demolition order has been passed and action has been planned on 25^th February 2026.

¶27

Ms. Smita Maan, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.3, submits that the respondent no.3 is not the owner/occupier of the property mentioned at prayer clause ‘a’ above.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid statement, the respondent no.1/MCD is directed to take action against the subject property in accordance with law. 11. A direction is also issued to the respondent no.2/SHO, Police Station: Vasant Kunj, South, to ensure that no fresh construction is carried out in the subject property.

¶29

The respondent no.2/SHO shall also ensure that sufficient Police force is made available on 25^th February 2026 when the demolition action is planned.

¶30

The present writ petition, along with all pending applications stand disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶31

Needless to state all rights, contentions and remedies of the owner/occupier of the subject property are kept open.

¶32

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶33

FEBRUARY 18, 2026 Rzu

¶34

W.P.(C) 2315/2026

¶35

Page 3 of 3

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

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 20/02/2026 at 13:09:44

Urvashi Verma v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urvashi Verma v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others

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

Rajni Devi Vs Google India and Others

M/S Green One Drive Private Limited Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Lalit Narayan Mithila University Vs Delhi International Arbitration Centre & Ors.

Mgr Anna Dravid Munnetra Kazhagam Vs Election Commission of India

Bipin Kumar Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Anr.

Rajiv Pandey Vs New Delhi Municipal Council

Runwell India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

M/Sverandah Moonshine through Its Director Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Mgr Anna Dravid Munnetra Kazhagam Vs Election Commission of India

M/S Economic Transport Organization & Ors. Vs M/S Pashupati Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd.

M/S Australian Forklift Training and Driving School Vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited & Anr.

Chintu Jain Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Sh. Baljeet Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Anr.

Rajiv Pandey Vs New Delhi Municipal Council