Dismissed

Joginder Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner

Delhi HC17 Sept 2026W.P.(C)/7188/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court upheld the Municipal Corporation’s demolition order and vacation notice concerning a building found to be in a dangerous condition. It relied on inspection records stating that repairs were required but had neither been undertaken nor were in progress. The writ petition was dismissed, and the related application was disposed of.

What the court decided

AI extract

Joginder Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi… — Municipal and Town Planning | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~5

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010237152026

¶4

- W.P.(C) 7188/2026 with CM APPL. 35174/2026 and CM APPL. 63760/2026

¶5

JOGINDER SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Simarpal Singh Sawhney, Advocate.

¶6

versus

¶7

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER .....Respondent Through: Ms. Manini Brar, Panel Counsel MCD with Mr. O.P. Harsh Singh Munday and Mr. Siddhant Chhabra, Advocates for MCD. Mr. Ali Humam, Advocate for Owner.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶9

O R D E R % 17.09.2026

¶10

The present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the following communications issued by the respondents/MCD in respect of property bearing no. 138, Basant Kaur Marg, Village Begumpur, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017 (‘subject property’):

¶11

i. Demolition order dated 18^th May, 2026 passed under Section 348 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation, 1957 (‘DMC Act’).

¶12

ii. Vacation notice dated 18^th May, 2026 under Section 349 of the DMC Act.

¶13

Earlier, a communication dated 6^th May, 2026 was sent by the

¶14

W.P.(C) 7188/2026

¶15

Page 1 of 4

¶16

This is a digitally signed order.

¶17

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 23/09/2026 at 11:00:50

¶18

respondents/MCD to the petitioner calling upon them to undertake repairs for strengthening or retrofitting of the subject property in consultation with a qualified structural engineer as the building was found to be in a dangerous condition.

¶19

Counsel for the petitioner, on 21^st May, 2026, submitted that the building repair work was being carried out when the impugned orders have been issued by the respondents/MCD.

¶20

On behalf of the respondents/MCD, a file noting was shown, wherein it was noted that during inspection, it was found that no repair work has been carried out or is in progress.

¶21

Taking note of the aforesaid submissions, a direction was issued by this Court on 21^st May, 2026, directing the petitioner to vacate the subject property in terms of the vacation notice dated 18^th May, 2026. It was also directed that upon vacation of the subject property by the petitioner, the property would be sealed by the MCD.

¶22

At the request of the petitioner, Registrar, DTU was asked to appoint a structural engineer to visit the subject property and submit a report to the Court. However, it was made clear that the fees of the structural engineer to be appointed by the Registrar, DTU shall be borne by the petitioner.

¶23

Status report has been filed on behalf of respondent/MCD, wherein it is stated that in terms of the directions passed by this Court on 21^st May, 2026, the subject property was sealed on 27^th May, 2026. Thereafter, MCD wrote to the Registrar, DTU on two occasions with regard to appointment of structural engineer to inspect the subject property. However, no response was received from DTU.

¶24

It is further stated in the status report that on a telephone call, the

¶25

W.P.(C) 7188/2026

¶26

Page 2 of 4

¶27

This is a digitally signed order.

¶28

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 23/09/2026 at 11:00:50

¶29

representative of DTU informed the respondent/MCD that since requisite fees/charges towards the structural audit have not been deposited by the petitioner, DTU did not initiate the structural audit of the subject property.

¶30

As per the status report, inspection and structural audit of the subject property was carried out by an empanelled structural engineer of the MCD in September, 2025. As per the Structure Audit Report, the subject property is in a dangerous condition and it should be immediately vacated and demolished.

¶31

The Court has been shown file notings of 6^th May, 2026 and 18^th May, 2026 which are set out below: File noting dated 6^th May, 2026

¶32

“ Subject: Inspection of premises No. 138, Basant Kaur Marg, Village Begumpur, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-11001 7

¶33

The undersigned, along with the AE, inspected premises No. 138 Basant Kaur Marg, Village Begumpur, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017. During the inspection, it was observed that certain portions of the wall and roof plaster had deteriorated and fallen off, and cracks were noticed at various locations in the building, which require immediate repair and maintenance.

¶34

In view of the above, the owners/occupiers of the said property are hereby advised to undertake the necessary repairs, strengthening, and/or retrofitting of the building in consultation with a qualified Structural Engineer and the Building Department, South Zone, in accordance with Clause 2.14 of the Unified Building Bye-Laws, 2016. The aforesaid measures are essential to safeguard the occupants, adjoining properties, and passersby from any potential danger.

¶35

It is further informed that. in the event of failure to carry out the requisite

¶36

W.P.(C) 7188/2026

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

This is a digitally signed order.

¶39

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 23/09/2026 at 11:00:50

¶40

repairs and remedial measures, the entire responsibility for any untoward incident shall rest solely with the owners/occupiers of the property.

¶41

Submitted for kind perusal and further necessary action, please .”

¶42

File noting dated 18^th May, 2026

¶43

“ The site was re-inspected on 18.05.2026 jointly by the AE (M-II), EE (M-II), and SE-I/SZ, During the inspection, it was observed that no repair work had been carried out and no repair work was in progress at the site . Submitted for further necessary action, please.”

¶44

The file noting dated 6^th May, 2026 records that, during inspection, it was observed that the subject property requires immediate repair and maintenance. Subsequently, the file noting dated 18^th May, 2026 records that, during inspection, it was observed that no repair work had been carried out and that no repair work was in progress at the subject building.

¶45

In light of the discussion above, no grounds have been made out for interference with the impugned order passed by MCD under Section 348 of the DMC Act and the vacation notice passed under Section 349.

¶46

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 14. The rights of the petitioner in the subject property would remain protected in accordance with law.

¶47

In view of the order passed above, CM APPL. 63760/2026 stands disposed of.

¶48

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶49

SEPTEMBER 17, 2026

Vivek/-

W.P.(C) 7188/2026

Page 4 of 4

This is a digitally signed order.

¶54

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 23/09/2026 at 11:00:50

Joginder Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Joginder Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jai Hanuman Traders Vs Union of India & Anr.

Alok Kumar Vs University of Delhi & Ors.

Katyani Exports through Its Proprietor Sh. Ajay Singh Gautam Vs Union of India and Ors.

Divine Creations through Its Partner Sh. Ajay Singh Gautam Vs Union of India and Ors.

Neeraj and Ors. Vs High Court of Delhi and Anr.

Gaurav Goel Vs Govt.Nct of Delhi through Deputy Commissioner of Police and Ors.

Puneet Batra Vs Union of India & Ors.

Gurjit Singh Talwar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.