Sanjeev Mehta Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

Sanjeev Mehta Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should direct respondent-MCD to initiate action against the unauthorised construction raised by respondent no. 3. +1 more

Court's answer

Accordingly, the Court was not inclined to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant the relief sought by the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

From a perusal of the memo of parties it appeared that the petitioner is not an immediate neighbour; no averment was made that the petitioner is an immediate neighbour affected by the alleged construction, the petitioner being described only as a resident of the locality.

Key takeaways

The petitioner admittedly does not have any connection with the property in question and has failed to show how any fundamental or legal right of the petitioner is being affected by any alleged construction activity carried out in the subject property.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Amit Bansal, J.), order dated 13.03.2026 in W.P.(C) 3211/2026 & CM APPL. 15395/2026 (Sanjeev Mehta v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.). The petitioner sought a direction to MCD to initiate action against unauthorised construction raised by respondent no. 3. An earlier petition, W.P.(C) 3998/2024, had been disposed of vide order dated 17.09.2024, directing MCD to act against the subject property on the basis of its status report; MCD thereafter submitted that respondent no. 3 had, on its own, removed the unauthorised construction, and photographs showing no excess coverage were taken on record. Noting that the petitioner was not an immediate neighbour, had no connection with the property in question, and had failed to show how any fundamental or legal right of his was affected by the alleged construction, the Court declined to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and disposed of the writ petition along with the pending application. No relief was granted.

$~50

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 3211/2026 & CM APPL. 15395/2026

SANJEEV MEHTA .....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Rahul Kumar Singh, Mr. Hem Kumar & Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocates.

versus

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Sanam Tripathi, ASC with Mr. Harjeet Singh, Advocate for MCD.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

O R D E R % 13.03.2026

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to respondent-MCD to initiate action against unauthorised construction raised by respondent no. 3.

From a perusal of the memo of parties, it appears that the petitioner is not an immediate neighbour. No averments have been made in the present writ petition stating whether the petitioner is an immediate neighbour and is affected by the alleged construction. In fact, an averment has been made in paragraph no. 2 that the petitioner is a resident of the said locality.

Earlier, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) 3998/2024, which was disposed of vide order dated 17^th September, 2024, taking into account the status report filed on behalf of the MCD. Vide the said order, respondent-MCD was directed to take action against the subject

Page 1 of 2

W.P.(C) 3211/2026

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 17/03/2026 at 11:27:43

property on the basis of the stand taken in the status report.

Ms. Sanam Tripathi, Additional Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of MCD, submits that after the aforesaid order was passed, respondent no. 3 on its own has removed the unauthorised construction.

Photographs have been handed over in Court to show that as on date, there is no excess coverage/ unauthorised construction.

5.1 The photographs are taken on record.

Admittedly, the petitioner in the present case does not have any connection with the property in question. The petitioner has failed to show as to how any fundamental or legal right of the petitioner is being affected by any alleged construction activity carried out in the subject property.

In view thereof, this Court is not inclined to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to grant the relief sought by the petitioners.

The writ petition along with pending application stands disposed of.

AMIT BANSAL, J

MARCH 13, 2026 at

Page 2 of 2

W.P.(C) 3211/2026

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 17/03/2026 at 11:27:43