Dismissed¶¶20

Dharmender Panwar v. MCD & Ors.

Delhi HC6 Jul 2026W.P.(C)/8747/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Locus standi writ petition unauthorized construction demolition Article 226 Constitution immediate neighbour directly affected incidental proximity not maintainable MCD booking demolition programme 08.07.2026 Mehrauli SHO PS Mehrauli Shiv Kumar v SDMC W.P.(C) 9470/2021 Tarun Kumar v Govt of NCT of Delhi W.P.(C) 16811/2025 Dharmender Panwar Amit Bansal dismissed 06.07.2026

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; respondent-MCD directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law; rights, contentions and legal remedies of respondent no.4 kept open. ¶¶20

Dharmender Panwar Vs MCD & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; respondent-MCD directed to take appropriate action in accordance with law; rights, contentions and legal remedies of respondent no.4 kept open.

¶¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who himself states he resides at a distance of 550 mtrs. from the subject property and is not directly affected by the unauthorized construction, has locus standi to maintain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to stop/demolish the unauthorized construction by respondent no.4.

¶¶19

Court's answer

It is a settled position that only a person who is an immediate neighbour and is affected by the unauthorised construction can file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking demolition; a writ petition filed by a person not directly affected, which fails to establish locus standi and rests on mere incidental proximity to the subject property, is not maintainable.

¶¶19

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner, residing 550 mtrs. from the subject property, is not a person directly affected by the unauthorized construction; the Court was therefore not inclined to entertain the writ petition and dismissed it.

¶¶20

Key takeaways

Respondent-MCD shall take appropriate action in accordance with law; pending applications were disposed of and all rights, contentions and legal remedies of respondent no.4 were kept open.obiter¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Amit Bansal, J.), order dated 06.07.2026 in W.P.(C) 8747/2026: Writ petition by Dharmender Panwar seeking a direction to stop unauthorized construction by respondent no.4 at a property near Plot no. 10 / plot no. 893-A, Ward No. 8, Kimaya Garden, Mehrauli, New Delhi, dismissed for want of locus standi. The petitioner himself stated he resides 550 mtrs. from the subject property. Relying on this Court's judgments in Shiv Kumar v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation (W.P.(C) 9470/2021) and Tarun Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (W.P.(C) 16811/2025), the Court held that only an immediate neighbour directly affected by unauthorized construction can maintain an Article 226 petition seeking demolition; a petition founded on mere incidental proximity is not maintainable. MCD had booked the property with demolition fixed for 08.07.2026; MCD to act in accordance with law; respondent no.4's rights kept open.

¶1

$~29

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 8747/2026 with CM APPL. 41097/2026 and CM APPL. 41098/2026

¶4

DHARMENDER PANWAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak, Advocate.

¶5

versus MCD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Precious K. Kelson, advocate for MCD.

¶6

Mr. Vivek Nilesh Goyal, Ms. Nikita Goyal and Mr. Naresh Chand Goyal, Advocates for R-3.

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

O R D E R

06.07.2026

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to stop the unauthorized construction being carried out by respondent no.4 at his property near Plot no. 10 in front plot no 893-A , Ward No. 8, Kimaya Garden Oppt Multan Dharamshala, Mehrauli, New Delhi -110030 (‘subject property’).

¶12

Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-MCD on advance notice submits that the subject property has been booked and demolition programme has been fixed for 8^th July, 2026.

¶13

Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3/ SHO, PS Mehrauli submits that the petitioner is repeatedly filing petitions before this Court in respect of unauthorized construction.

¶14

W.P.(C) 8747/2026

¶15

Page 1 of 2

¶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 08/07/2026 at 12:19:11

¶18

The petitioner himself has stated in the writ petition that the petitioner resides at a distance of 550 mtrs. from the subject property.

¶19

It is a settled position of law that only a person who is an immediate neighbour and is affected by the unauthorised construction can file petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking demolition. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 9470/2021 Shiv Kumar v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and W.P.(C) 16811/2025 Tarun Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, wherein it was observed that a writ petition filed by a person who is not directly affected and fails to establish locus standi , particularly when based on mere incidental proximity to the subject property, is not maintainable.

¶20

In my considered view, the petitioner is not a person directly affected by the unauthorized construction. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed.

¶21

Needless to say, respondent-MCD shall take appropriate action in accordance with law.

¶22

Pending applications stand disposed of.

¶23

All rights, contentions and legal remedies of the respondent no.4 are kept open.

¶24

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶25

JULY 6, 2026 Vivek/-

¶26

W.P.(C) 8747/2026

¶27

Page 2 of 2

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

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 08/07/2026 at 12:19:11

Dharmender Panwar v. MCD & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharmender Panwar v. MCD & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Vandana Ashok 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.

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

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

Nazir Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Anr.

Ajay Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.

Nitin Jain Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Smt Rajabala Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Gayatri Kohli Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

Anil Kanodia & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Mohammad Mujeeb Ahmad & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Rajiv Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.