Allowed

Muslim Committee Chattarpur Village & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Delhi HC2 Sept 2026CONT.CAS(C)/703/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed exemption application and condoned eight days delay. It disposed of the writ petition by directing MCD to act on unauthorized construction while restraining further building, and dismissed the contempt petition noting construction had stopped.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 8 days delay allowed; writ petition disposed with directions to MCD; private respondent restrained from further construction; contempt petition dismissed.

Muslim Committee Chattarpur Village & Anr. Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~2 & 3

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

CNR No. DLHC010169602026

¶4

- CONT.CAS(C) 703/2026 & CM APPL. 26554/2026, CM APPL. 26555/2026

¶5

2 MUSLIM COMMITTEE CHATTARPUR VILLAGE & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Karn, Mr. Pradeep Dudy, Mr. Sahil Sharma and Mr. Ali Md. Maaz, Advocates versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Chopra, Standing Counsel for MCD with Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for MCD Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh and Ms. Laqshyaa Saluja, Advocates along with Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Field Inspector, SDM Office, Chattarpur Ms. Farhat Jahan Rehmani, ASC with Ms. Muskan Ali and Ms. Tasneem Parveen, Advocates for R-3/Delhi Waqf Board Ms. Snehlata S. Surana, CGSC with Mr. Waseem Ahmad, Advocate for R-4 and R-5 Mr. Raj Kumar Nahataa, Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Ms. Nidhi Singh and Ms. Isha Rajgarhia, Advocates for R-6

¶6

# CNR No. DLHC010073002026

¶7

- W.P.(C) 2668/2026 & CM APPL. 12995/2026, CM APPL. 36238/2026, CM APPL. 36307/2026, CM APPL. 59229/2026

¶8

3 MUSLIM COMMITTEE CHATTARPUR VILLAGE & ORS. .....Petitioners

¶9

Page 1 of 8

¶10

CONT.CAS(C) 703/2026 & W.P.(C) 2668/2026

¶11

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 08/09/2026 at 11:39:56

¶12

Through: Mr. Vivek Kumar Karn, Mr. Pradeep Dudy, Mr. Sahil Sharma and Mr. Ali Md. Maaz, Advocates versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Chopra, Standing Counsel for MCD with Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for MCD Mr. Shashi Pratap Singh and Ms. Laqshyaa Saluja, Advocates along with Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Field Inspector, SDM Office, Chattarpur Ms. Farhat Jahan Rehmani, ASC with Ms. Muskan Ali and Ms. Tasneem Parveen, Advocates for R-3/Delhi Waqf Board Ms. Snehlata S. Surana, CGSC with Mr. Waseem Ahmad, Advocate for R-4 and R-5 Mr. Raj Kumar Nahataa, Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Ms. Nidhi Singh and Ms. Isha Rajgarhia, Advocates for R-6

¶13

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶14

O R D E R % 02.09.2026 CM APPL. 26554/2026 (exemption) IN CONT.CAS(C) 703/2026

¶15

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

CM APPL. 26555/2026 IN CONT.CAS(C) 703/2026

¶17

This application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking condonation of delay of eight (8) days in re-filing the present petition.

¶18

For the reasons stated, the application is allowed. The delay of eight (8) days in re-filing the present petition is condoned.

¶19

W.P.(C) 2668/2026

¶20

Page 2 of 8

¶21

CONT.CAS(C) 703/2026 & W.P.(C) 2668/2026

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 08/09/2026 at 11:39:56

¶24

The present writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:

¶25

Notice in the present petition was issued vide order dated 25^th February 2026, on which date status quo was directed to be maintained in respect of the subject land. A joint survey of the subject land in question was directed to be conducted on behalf of the respondents, SDM, Delhi Waqf Board and the Police Authorities so as to determine the extent of encroachment as well as unauthorised construction. Further, the respondent no.1/MCD was also directed to independently inspect the property.

¶26

In the status report filed on behalf of the respondent no.1/MCD, it has been stated that the subject property has been booked and a show cause notice has been issued for unauthorised construction on 27^th April, 2026. The relevant extracts from the status report are set out below:-

¶27

Page 3 of 8

¶28

CONT.CAS(C) 703/2026 & W.P.(C) 2668/2026

¶29

This is a digitally signed order.

¶30

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 08/09/2026 at 11:39:56

¶31

This is a digitally signed order.

¶32

Page 4 of 8

¶33

CONT.CAS(C) 703/2026 & W.P.(C) 2668/2026

¶34

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 08/09/2026 at 11:39:56

¶35

Vide order dated 8^th May, 2026, joint survey using the Total Station Survey (TSS) method was directed to be carried out by the aforesaid official respondents in the presence of a representative of the petitioner and respondent no.6 on 26^th May, 2026 at 11:00 AM.

¶36

A status report has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.2/GNCTD. A copy of the status report along with the demarcation report has been supplied to counsel appearing for the parties. In terms of the status report, a joint survey using the Total Station Survey (TSS) method was conducted at the site on 26^th May, 2026, in the presence of the Halqa Patwari . The representative of the respondent no.3/Delhi Waqf Board, the representative of the respondent no.1/MCD, as well as counsel for the petitioner and the representative of the private respondent no.6, were also present. Various meetings were held between the parties and a draft demarcation report was prepared. A reverification exercise was carried out on 24^th August, 2026. Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the status report are extracted below:-

¶37

Page 5 of 8

¶38

CONT.CAS(C) 703/2026 & W.P.(C) 2668/2026

¶39

This is a digitally signed order.

¶40

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 08/09/2026 at 11:39:56

¶41

This is a digitally signed order.

¶42

Page 6 of 8

¶43

CONT.CAS(C) 703/2026 & W.P.(C) 2668/2026

¶44

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 08/09/2026 at 11:39:56

¶45

It is clear from a reading of the status report that the subject property, i.e. the Jain Temple, does not form part of Khasra No.61 .

¶46

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent no.3 object to the contents of the status report.

¶47

This Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to get into disputed questions of fact with regard to the contents of the demarcation report filed on behalf of the respondent. Clearly, the demarcation exercise was carried out under orders of the Court and in the presence of all concerned parties.

¶48

In the event, any party has any grievance with the veracity of the demarcation report, they will be entitled to take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶49

Insofar as the cost of TSS Survey is concerned, the private respondent no.6 and the petitioner both shall equally bear charges incurred for carrying out said exercise, totalling to Rs.1,18,000/- payable to the surveyor, i.e. ‘Unique Measurements, Plot No.3, Gali no.16, Main Burari Road, Sarup Nagar, Delhi’.

¶50

13.1. The due amount shall be paid within two (2) weeks from today.

¶51

In view thereof, the present writ petition is disposed of while directing the respondent/MCD to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the subject property. The respondent no.6 is restrained from carrying

¶52

Page 7 of 8

¶53

CONT.CAS(C) 703/2026 & W.P.(C) 2668/2026

¶54

This is a digitally signed order.

¶55

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 08/09/2026 at 11:39:56

¶56

out any further construction till the show cause notice dated 27^th April 2026 is adjudicated upon by the respondent no.1/MCD. The respondent no.1/MCD and the respondent no.4/SHO P.S. Mehrauli shall ensure that no construction is carried out in the subject property till the show cause notice is adjudicated upon.

¶57

All rights, contentions and legal remedies of the private respondent are kept open.

¶58

CONT.CAS(C) 703/2026

¶59

A status report has been filed on behalf of the respondent/SHO, P.S. Mehrauli. Paragraph 5 of the said status report is set out below:

¶60

A reading of the aforesaid indicates that unauthorised construction has been stopped at the subject property.

¶61

In view of the aforesaid and the order passed above in W.P.(C) 2668/2026, the contempt petition stands disposed of.

¶62

AMIT BANSAL, J

¶63

SEPTEMBER 2, 2026 ds

¶64

Page 8 of 8

¶65

CONT.CAS(C) 703/2026 & W.P.(C) 2668/2026

¶66

Muslim Committee Chattarpur Village & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muslim Committee Chattarpur Village & Anr. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

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

Ravindra Singh Vs Anshu Prakash & Ors.

Ms Anita Rai & Ors. Vs Mr Paramvir Singh Rai & Anr.

Meenakshi Vs Deepti Bhat & Ors.

Surinder Singh & Anr. Vs Harcharan Singh

R.D. Rohilla & Ors. Vs Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Ors.

Rakesh Vs Ms Rimjhim Prasad the Chief Commissioner Central Excise Office Delhi

Nirmal Tower Building Occupants Welfare Society (Regd) Vs Sumit Gakhar & Anr.

Shri Raj Kumar Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.