Disposed¶8

Anand v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/5653/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anand v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.; W.P.(C) 5653/2026; High Court of Delhi; order dated 06.07.2026; Article 226 Constitution of India; tehbazari site No. 17131, Old Lajpat Rai Market, Chandni Chowk; alleged trespass/illegal occupation by Respondent No. 2 (January 2023); representations to MCD undecided; concerned Assistant Commissioner MCD to decide after hearing both sides within two months; rights and contentions left open; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the concerned Assistant Commissioner, MCD, to decide the Petitioner's representations after hearing the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 within two months; all rights and contentions of the Petitioner left open; petition and pending applications disposed of. ¶8

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Directions sought from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi to take immediate action against the alleged illegal encroachment and unauthorised occupation of tehbazari site No. 17131 by Respondent No. 2, and the decision of the Petitioner's pending representations to the MCD.

¶2

Court's answer

Considering the nature of the matter, the Petitioner's representations shall be decided by the concerned Assistant Commissioner, MCD, after hearing the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2, within a period of two months.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

All rights and contentions of the Petitioner are left open in respect of any order that may be passed by the Assistant Commissioner, MCD.

¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan, JJ.), order dated 06.07.2026 in W.P.(C) 5653/2026, disposed of a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by Anand seeking directions to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD') to take immediate action against the alleged illegal encroachment and unauthorised occupation of tehbazari site No. 17131, Opposite Shop No. 1, Old Lajpat Rai Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. The Petitioner claimed rights, title and possession acquired through duly executed documents in 2003 and alleged trespass and illegal occupation by Respondent No. 2 in January 2023, with representations to the MCD remaining undecided. The Court, without deciding the rival claims, directed the concerned Assistant Commissioner, MCD, to decide the Petitioner's representations after hearing the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 within a period of two months, expressly leaving all rights and contentions of the Petitioner open; the petition and all pending applications were disposed of.

¶1

$~51

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

+ W.P.(C) 5653/2026 ANAND .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Neema Malhotra, Adv. [Mob. 9811383669]

¶4

versus

¶5

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS......Respondents Through: Ms. Shilpa Ohri, ASC for MCD.

¶6

CORAM:

¶7

JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN O R D E R

¶8

% 06.07.2026

¶9

This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

¶10

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia , seeking directions to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter, ‘MCD’) to take immediate action against illegal encroachment and unauthorised occupation of the tehbazari site No. 17131, situated Opposite Shop No.1, Old Lajpat Rai Market, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter, ‘tehbazari site’) .

¶11

The grievance of the Petitioner is that he was dispossessed from his tehbazari site, wherein he acquired rights, title and possession through various duly executed documents in 2003, by Respondent No. 2.

¶12

According to the Petitioner, due to his mother’s illness, he had to remain intermittently away from the tehbazari site.

¶13

However, sometime in January, 2023, the Respondent No.2 had trespassed and had illegally occupied the tehbazari site. Thereafter, the Petitioner had made several representations to the MCD. However, the same

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 09/07/2026 at 11:00:55

¶16

have not been decided.

¶17

Considering the nature of the matter, the Petitioner’s representations shall be decided by the concerned Assistant Commissioner, MCD, after hearing the Petitioner and Respondent no.2, within a period of two months. 7. All rights and contentions of the Petitioner are left open in respect of any order that may be passed by the Assistant Commissioner, MCD. 8. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

¶18

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.

¶19

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.

¶20

JULY 6, 2026 aj/sm

¶21

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 09/07/2026 at 11:00:55

Anand v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vandana Ashok Dusad & Anr. Vs Consolidation Officer Cum Tehsildar (Kapeshera) & Anr.

Ashok Kumar Dusad & Anr. Vs Consolidation Officer-Cum-Tehsildar (Kapeshera) & Anr.

M/S Global Tabbac Legacy Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Riddhi Education Trust Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.

Parivar Seva Sanstha & Anr. Vs Dte. of Income Tax & Anr.

M/S Danieli Corus Bv Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Int. Tax 1(2)(2)

Delhi Development Authority Vs Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Miniflex Cables Manufactures LLP Vs Union of India and Ors.

Pushpal Singh Vs Lig Govt. Servants Co-Operative House Building Society Ltd. & Ors.

Delhi Urban Cooperative Banks Federation Ltd. Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies and Ors.

Anil Kumar Goyal & Ors. Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies & Anr.

Indusind Media & Communication Ltd. & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Bhima Riddhi Digital Services & Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Rohit Malhotra Vs Registrar Cooperative Societies & Anr.