Delhi District Court
Rajvir Singh vs Mcd on 9 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA-I
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, SHAHDARA
DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLSH01-005224-2023
RCA No.56/2025
SH. RAJVIR SINGH
S/o Sh. Tejpal Chaudhary
R/o F-33, East Jyoti Nagar
Delhi - 110093
.... APPELLANT
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER
MCD
R/o Civic Center Minto Road
New Delhi - 110002.
.... RESPONDENT
Date of Filing : 31.08.2023
Date of final arguments : 01.11.2025
Date of Judgment : 09.12.2025
ORDER
1. This Order shall dispose of an appeal filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC for setting aside the impugned order dated 05.06.2023, passed by the court of Sh. Himanshu Raman Singh, Ld. ASCJ, titled as 'Rajvir Singh vs Commissioner, EDMC'.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that the appellant claims to be the lawful owner of property bearing no. F-33, East Jyoti Nagar, Delhi - 110093 and is enjoying the uninterrupted possession of the aforesaid property RCA No.56/2025 Rajvir Singh Vs. Commissioner EDMC Page No.1/ 6 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.09 13:11:36 +0530 for more than 50 years. It is averred that the layout plan of Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara was approved by the standing committee vide resolution no. 1476 dated 19.01.1962, subject to certain conditions. It is further averred that later the said area was notified as Delhi Development Area in the year 1964 and the DDA approved the set back and demarcation plan of east Jyoti Nagar on 27.10.1970 and of west Jyoti Nagar on 10.01.1972. The services of East Jyoti Nagar were taken over by MCD.
3. It is averred that an order dated 20.08.2019 was passed by the MCD to remove the encroachment in the colony of appellant which was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a Writ Petition No. 2365/2016 and vide order dated 29.01.2021, Hon'ble Delhi High Court directed the respondents to grant an opportunity for hearing the appellant upon the show cause notice issued to him. It is further averred that on 27.01.2022, an order was passed by the respondent without considering the submissions of appellant whereby his property along with other properties were sought to be demolished. The appellant sought declaration of the said order as null and void in a civil suit filed before the Ld. Trial Court as well as mandatory injunction against respondent/defendant therein, restraining them for taking any coercive action against him till NCT Laws (Amendment) Act, 2017 is in force. The Ld. Trial Court, while deciding maintainability of the said civil suit and after going through the order of demolition, had stated in its order dated 05.06.2023 that the said suit is barred under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) and (a) CPC and RCA No.56/2025 Rajvir Singh Vs. Commissioner EDMC Page No.2/ 6 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.09 13:11:41 +0530 also barred under Section 347(e) read with Section 347 B of the DMC Act, 1957 and had rejected the plaint.
4. It is averred that the land in question is a private land owned by Delhi Housing Finance Corporation and was sold by DHFC to the appellant and others. It is averred that respondent cannot take action against the unauthorized construction if any as alleged, as the same is an old construction and is protected under NCT Laws (Special Provision) Second (Amendment) Act, 2017. It is further averred that the order dated 27.01.2022 passed by DC Shahdara (North) Zone was for removal of encroachment from a government land and not a demolition order to be challenged in Appellate Tribunal MCD and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred for this reason. Hence, the present appeal has been filed.
5. No reply to the present appeal was filed by the respondent and Ld. Counsel for the respondent had argued straightway.
6. I have heard Sh. Aditya Kumar - Ld. Counsel for appellant, Shri Hemant Kumar and Ms. Kirti Tyagi - Ld. Counsels for respondent and have perused the record as well as gone through the Trial Court record.
7. The Ld. Trial Court had rejected the plaint on the ground that same is barred under Order 7 Rule 11(d) and (a) and under Section 347(e) read with Section 347 B of the DMC Act, 1957. The provisions of Order 7 Rule 11(d) and (a) as well as Section 347E of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act were referred to by the Ld. Trial Court while returning the findings. The Ld. Trial RCA No.56/2025 Rajvir Singh Vs. Commissioner EDMC Page No.3/ 6 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.09 13:11:47 +0530 Court was of the opinion that since the impugned order of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner Shahdara (North) Zone was an order of demolition, an appeal would lie against the said order before the Ld. Appellate Tribunal MCD, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 343 DMC Act. Ld. Counsel for the respondent corporation, in the oral submissions as well as in the written arguments, has also endorsed this view of the Ld. Trial Court.
8. However, Ld. Counsel for the appellant emphasized that the Ld. Trial Court ought to have considered the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC on merits since the impugned order of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner was containing a direction to remove encroachment on the public land. Thus, the question arises whether the said order was a simplicitor order for removal of encroachment or was an order of demolition of the super structure erected by the appellant on the alleged public land.
9. The meaning of 'removal of encroachment' conveys only one thing that any super structure on any land has to be removed and such a removal can only be by means of demolition. Thus, in the garb of removal of encroachment, the respondent corporation intended to demolish the super structure on the subject land. The order of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner, MCD dated 27.01.2022 may also be referred to in this regard wherein, in the concluding paragraph, he has observed as under: -
"Therefore, I am of the considered view, in light of the above discussions that the entire super structure over the RCA No.56/2025 Rajvir Singh Vs. Commissioner EDMC Page No.4/ 6 Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.12.09 13:11:53 +0530 land in question is an encroachment on government land which is earmarked in the approved layout plan (of East and West Jyoti Nagar), for the purpose of civil amenities like Communities Halls, Dispensaries, Schools, Park, etc. and therefore, the super structure/building is required to be demolished." (emphasis supplied) In the later part of the said order, directions have been issued in following words: -
"The Superintending Engineer of the Zone is directed to constitute a 'Removal of encroachment' Squad consisting of the officers of Building Department and Maintenance Department to remove the entire encroachment from the site with the help of Local Police and officers of DDA." (emphasis supplied)
11. The import of the above observations and directions of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner in the said order dated 27.01.2022 clearly conveys the intention of the Corporation to demolish the entire super structure belonging to the appellant and like others on the claimed government land and therefore, there is no hesitation to hold that the Ld. Trial Court rightly returned a finding that only an appeal under Section 343 of the DMC Act lie against the said order of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Shahdara (North) Zone dated 27.01.2022 before the Ld. Appellate Tribunal, MCD.
12. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant had also argued on the merits of the aforesaid order of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner while referring to the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pt. Chet Ram Vashist Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1995) 1 SCC 47 which was referred to by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Green Park Association RCA No.56/2025 Rajvir Singh Vs. Commissioner EDMC Page No.5/ 6 Digitally signed SANJAY by SANJAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.12.09 13:11:59 +0530 Society Vs. Corporation of Delhi 2000 V AD (Delhi) 561 .
However, since this court is of the view that only Appellate Tribunal MCD is competent to decide the validity of the said order dated 27.01.2022 of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner, therefore, this court refrains from giving any opinion on the merits, veracity or legality of the said order in terms of the above quoted judgments, lest it may prejudice the Ld. Appellate Tribunal MCD while hearing the appeal against the said order.
13. Accordingly, the appellant is granted eight weeks' time time from the date of this order to file a proper appeal before the Ld. Appellate Tribunal MCD against the order dated 27.01.2022 of the Ld. Deputy Commissioner, Shahdara (North) Zone and till then, the respondent Corporation is restrained from taking any coercive action against the appellant in terms of the said order. The Ld. Appellate Tribunal MCD, in case approached, is also requested to decide the appeal if any, expeditiously.
14. In light of the above discussion and liberty, the present appeal is dismissed.
Appeal file be consigned to Record Room and a copy of this order along with the TCR be sent to the Ld. Trial Court.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT
On 09th day of December, 2025 SANJAY Digitally signed
by SANJAY
SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2025.12.09
13:12:08 +0530
(SANJAY SHARMA-I)
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHAHDARA DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI
RCA No.56/2025 Rajvir Singh Vs. Commissioner EDMC Page No.6/ 6