Delhi District Court
Imran Khan vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 6 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
WEST DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
MCD Appeal No. 01/2025
CNR No. DLWT01-000126-2025
1. Imran Khan
(Presently in Judicial Custody)
2. Najeem Khan
3. Mujeem Khan
(Imran Khan will be represented by Mujeem Khan)
4. Mohd. Fardeen Khan
All S/o. Sh. Nawab Khan
All R/o. WZ-150, Khayala Village
Khayala, New Delhi. .....Appellants
versus
1. Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner
Dr. S. P. Mukherjee Civic Centre
J. L. Nehru Marg, New Delhi-110001.
2. Deputy Commissioner
West Zone, MCD, First Floor
Shivaji Enclave, Near EST Gate Hall
New Delhi-110027.
3. Assistant Engineer (Building)
West Zone, MCD Building Department
Delhi. ..... Respondents
Date of institution : 07.01.2025
Date of hearing arguments : 23.01.2026
Date of judgment : 06.02.2026
MCD Appeal No. 01/2025 Imran Khan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. Page 1 of 19
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment shall decide the appeal preferred by the appellants under Section 347D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for brevity, 'DMC Act'), assailing the order dated 03.05.2024 of the Ld. Appellate Tribunal, MCD, Delhi (for brevity, 'AT MCD') in appeal No. 283/ATMCD/2024 titled 'Imran Khan & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.', vide which the appeal against the sealing order with respect to property No. WZ-150, Khayala Village, Khayala, New Delhi (for brevity, 'subject property'), was dismissed.
2. The impugned order dated 03.05.2024 was earlier challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide W.P. (C) No. 15427/2024. Vide order dated 05.11.2024, it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that against the impugned order, an appeal lies to the District Judge under Section 347D of the DMC Act read with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrik Singh Lyallpuri v. Union of India (2011) 6SCC 535, accordingly, the said Writ Petition was disposed of with the liberty to the appellant to assail the impugned order as per law. Thereafter, the present appeal came to be filed before this Court.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts as find mention in the appeal are that the father of the appellants, namely Nawab Khan purchased the subject property which was measuring 19 sq. yards MCD Appeal No. 01/2025 Imran Khan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. Page 2 of 19 in the joint name of his sons i.e. the appellants on 28.11.2015. The subject property is in the Lal Dora of Khayala Village. In 2015, the father of the appellants constructed a one room set on the ground floor, one room set on the first floor, one room set on the second floor, and one tin shed room on the third floor in the subject property. No construction was raised thereafter. The appellants and their family members have since been residing in the subject property. The electricity meter (CA No. 151980549) installed in the said property was in the name of appellant No. 3. The respondent No. 2 / Deputy Commissioner, West Zone MCD issued the show cause notice dated 05.02.2024 under Section 344(1) and 343 of the DMC Act. The order of Demolition of Building under Section 343 of the DMC Act was issued vide notice dated 12.02.2024. Thereafter, show cause notice dated 20.02.2024 No. EE(B)-I/WZ/SR/2024/08 under Section 345A of the DMC Act was issued. The sealing order under Section 345A of the DMC Act dated 26.02.2024 in the name of the appellant No.1 was received by appellant Nos. 2 to 4.
3.1 The appellant Nos. 2 to 4 sent a reply to the show cause notice No. EE(B)1/42/UC/2024/60 dated 05.02.2024 on 14.02.2024 to the Assistant Engineer, MCD, MCD Building Department, Delhi i.e. respondent No. 3, which was received in his office on 14.02.2024 wherein it was stated that the appellants were jointly residing in the subject property since 14 years and they had not raised any illegal construction. It was also mentioned that the MCD Appeal No. 01/2025 Imran Khan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. Page 3 of 19 respondents had not served any notice to the appellants before issuing the demolition notice to them. The appellants have not violated any rules and regulations of building bye-laws.
3.2 It is averred that the appellant No. 4 replied to the show cause notice under Section 345A of the DMC Act, 1957 (66 of 1957) vide reference No. EE(B)-I/WZ/SR/2024/08 dated 20.02.2024 issued against the appellant No. 1 Imran Khan on 21.02.2024. The appellants never raised any unauthorized construction nor flouted any rules / regulations, norms and guidelines of NDMC/MPD-2021 however, the subject property was sealed by the respondents without considering the "genuine reason of the appellants". The appellants requested the respondent No.1 to deseal the property of the appellants and allow them to take out their belongings, however the respondents did not allow the appellants to take out their belongings from the sealed property. After sealing the subject property on 26.02.2024, the appellants approached the respondents, but they were not provided with any proper and just clarification or information about the sealing. After the dismissal of the appeal, the appellants applied for getting sanction of the building in the subject property which was sealed vide order dated 26.02.2024 however, till now the respondents were not given any reply. The appellants, thus aggrieved by the act of the respondents of sealing their property, which was being used by the appellants for residential purposes, were left with no option but to file the appeal (challenging the MCD Appeal No. 01/2025 Imran Khan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. Page 4 of 19 sealing order) before the Ld. AT MCD.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
4. The impugned order of the Ld. AT MCD dated 03.05.2024, has been assailed by the appellants on the following grounds :
4.1 The Ld. AT MCD without considering the facts of the case of the appellants dismissed the appeal of the appellants in a hasty manner. The notices dated 05.02.2024, 12.02.2024, 20.02.2024 and 26.02.2024 issued by the respondents are illegal and liable to be set aside. The orders of the respondents regarding the sealing of the subject property of the appellants have been done malafidely, arbitrarily and in illegal exercise of power under the DMC Act.
4.2 The respondents have committed a serious error of law by sealing the subject property, which was being used by the appellants and their family members for residential purpose since 2015. The appellants have not carried out any unauthorized construction in the subject property.
4.3 The respondents, while passing the impugned sealing order, neither applied their judicial mind nor went through their own record.
4.4 The appellants neither legally nor officially received any show cause notice as required under Section 345A of the DMC MCD Appeal No. 01/2025 Imran Khan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. Page 5 of 19 Act. Thus, the respondents lack the inherent jurisdiction to pass the order of sealing under Section 345A of the DMC Act and as such the impugned order is bad in law. No opportunity of being heard was given, no spot inspection was done, by the subordinate staff of the building department. Without complying with the mandatory provisions of law no action could be taken.
4.5 The Ld. AT MCD failed to appreciate the fact that as per order dated 28.09.2011 issued vide order No. TP/G/3426/11 and order dated 20.06.2012 issued vide order No. D-111/COM/SDMC/2012, regarding the sanction of building plan in the village abadi, it is crystal clear that there is no sealing or demolition to be done. Accordingly, prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned order dated 03.05.2024 of the Ld. AT MCD dismissing the appeal against the sealing order dated 26.02.2024.
5. Reply to the appeal has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It has been averred therein that the appeal does not disclose any cause of action, hence the same be rejected. It is submitted that as per the record maintained by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 / MCD i.e. Building Department-I, West Zone, the subject property bearing No. WZ-150, Khayala Village, Khayala New Delhi stands booked vide file No. EE (B)-I/WZ/UC2024/60 dated 05.02.2024 for unauthorized construction in the shape of Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor. Consequently, a show MCD Appeal No. 01/2025 Imran Khan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. Page 6 of 19 cause notice under Sections 344 (1) and 343 of the DMC Act was issued to appellant No. 1 Imran Khan on 05.02.2024 and was served through pasting/affixation on 05.02.2024. Reply to the said show cause notice was received in the department on 14.02.2024 much after the stipulated period. However, the reply was not found satisfactory as the appellants had not attached any House Tax receipts which can prove that the construction is old and protected. Consequently, order of demolition under Section 343 of the DMC Act was issued to Imran Khan (appellant No.1) on 12.02.2024 and same was served through pasting/affixation on 13.02.2024. In order to execute the said demolition order, an inspection was made by the concerned JE(B) on 19.02.2024, wherein it was found that the property is residentially occupied and the permission was sought by JE(B) to issue vacation notice under Section 349 of the DMC Act. The same was granted and vacation notice was issued to the appellant No.1 Imran Khan (owner/occupier) on 20.02.2024 and copy of the same was also sent to S.H.O. PS. Khayala, New Delhi with a request to get the said property vacated.
5.1 It is further submitted in the reply that apart from demolition action sealing action has also been initiated by the department in respect of the above said property and a show cause notice under Section 345A of the DMC Act was issued to appellant No.1 Imran Khan (owner/builder) dated 20.02.2024 and same was served through Indian Speed Post on 20.02.2024 and also served personally, which was received by Ms. Nargish on 20.02.2024.
MCD Appeal No. 01/2025 Imran Khan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. Page 7 of 19Reply to the said sealing show cause notice was received in the department on 22.02.2024 from Fardeen Khan (appellant No. 4), but after scrutiny, the said reply was not found satisfactory, as they did not submit any substantial evidence to support their claim in the reply. Sealing order under Section 345A of the DMC Act was passed on 26.02.2024, by the competent authority. Thereafter, a special demolition/sealing action program against the unauthorized construction/property under question was fixed by the department for 27.02.2024. On that day in the presence of police force from concerned PS. Khayala, New Delhi on 27.02.2024, the roof of the second floor/asbestos sheets and one wall at the second floor was demolished. Further, one RCC panel at the roof of the first floor was also demolished and one wall at the first floor was also demolished. The said property was sealed at 2 points at Ground Floor i.e. gate of entrance to the stairs was sealed and room at ground floor was also sealed.
5.2 After the execution of demolition/sealing action on 27.02.2024, a Strict Vigil (Watch and Ward) letter has been sent to S.H.O. PS. Khayala, New Delhi vide No. D/1090/EE(B)-I/WZ/2024/AE dated 29.02.2024 with a request to keep strict watch and ward over the said demolished / sealed property to avoid any fresh construction / seal tempering done by the owner / builder / occupier. It is submitted that the property of the appellants cannot be regularized and no sanctioned plan can be issued as the area of property of the appellants is less than 32 sq. MCD Appeal No. 01/2025 Imran Khan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. Page 8 of 19 meters. As per clause 4.4.3 of MPD-2021, the minimum size of the residential plot shall be 32 sq. meters. Hence, the property having area less than 32 sq. meters, cannot be regularized and also no sanctioned plan can be issued. Accordingly, a prayer is made for dismissal of the appeal.
DECISION
6. Arguments were addressed by Mr. Babu Lal, Ld, Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Avishek Kumar, Ld. Counsel for the respondents / MCD.
7. It is important to bring on record that vide order dated 18.01.2025 of this Court, on the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, it was directed that the concerned official of MCD shall de-seal the premises bearing No. WZ-150, Khayala Village, Khayala, New Delhi consisting of ground and first floor on 20.01.2025 at 12.00 Noon for two hours and facilitate the appellants to take out their goods. Ld. Counsel for the appellants was directed to remain present at the spot and prepare an inventory of the goods taken out of the sealed house. One copy of such inventory was directed to be handed over to the concerned official of MCD and the original thereof be submitted in this Court. After two hours i.e. at 2.00 p.m. on 20.01.2025, the premises was directed to be sealed again. The concerned official of MCD was directed to prepare a report of these proceedings and place it before this Court. As per the status report filed by MCD, Mujeem Khan (appellant No. 3) reached at the site and intimated that they MCD Appeal No. 01/2025 Imran Khan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. Page 9 of 19 do not want to de-seal the premises to take out the goods from the suit premises.
8. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to reproduce the impugned order dated 03.05.2024 which reads as under :-
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall decide the appeal filed by appellants against the sealing order passed with respect to property bearing no. WZ-150, Khayala Village, New Delhi.
2. Sh. Babu Lal, Ld. counsel for appellants has contended that the property in question is situated in a village abadi, therefore building bye-laws are not applicable. He further contended that MCD has no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings, therefore, sealing order dated 26.02.2024 is contrary to law and liable to be set aside. He prayed that appeal may be allowed and impugned sealing order may be set aside.
3. Sh. Avishek Kumar, Ld. counsel for the respondent has contended that the property in question was booked for unauthorized construction and show cause notice under Section 343 of the DMC Act was issued, which was duly received by appellants but they filed reply after expiry of the statutory period and even reply was also not found satisfactory, therefore, demolition order was passed. He further contended that appellants have not challenged the said demolition order. He further contended that sealing show cause notice was also issued, which was duly served, pursuant to which appellants submitted their reply, in which they had admitted that they purchased the property in question in the year 2015 and thereafter constructed the same thereafter without any sanction building plan. He further contended that the sealing order has been passed by the Quasi Judicial Authority in accordance with law. He prayed that appeal may be dismissed.
4. I have heard Ld counsel for appellant, Ld counsel for the respondent, perused the appeal, impugned order as well as the record. A perusal of the above shows that property bearing no. WZ-150, Khayala Village, New Delhi was MCD Appeal No. 01/2025 Imran Khan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. Page 10 of 19 booked for unauthorized construction in the shape of ground floor, first floor and second floor and show cause notice dated 20.02.2024 under Section 345A of the DMC Act was issued, which was duly served upon appellants, pursuant to which they filed their reply dated 21.02.2024, which was found not satisfactory, therefore, sealing order dated 26.02.2024 was passed.
5. It is the admitted case of appellants that they purchased the property in question in the year 2015 and raised construction over the same thereafter without any sanction building plan.
6. The appellants have challenged the sealing order without specifying the date of the said sealing order on the ground that the property in question is situated in a village abadi i.e. lal dora, therefore, the MCD has no jurisdiction to initiate the proceedings.
7. The above contention of Ld. counsel of appellant is not sustainable, Clause 3 of the Building Regulations for Special Areas, Unauthorized Regularized Colonies and Village Abadis, 2010, notified on 17.01.2011 talks about building regularization, which reads as under:-
Building Regulations Building plan in special area, unauthorized regularized colonies and village abadis rural / urban will be considered only for the plots which form part of approved / notified Layout Plan of the Area by the Competent Authority. The Area in respect of which there is now approved Layout Plan shall be governed by the provisions of the Master Plan / Zonal Development Plan. This shall be the responsibility of the residents / RWA to prepare layout plan and get it approved from the local body. All existing exemptions with respect to sanctioning of building plans in the village abadis will cease to exist from the date of notification of these regulations.
(i) Number of Dwelling Units (DUs), FAR, height of building, basement and other conditions shall be as per MPD - 2021 norms for residential plotted development.MCD Appeal No. 01/2025 Imran Khan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. Page 11 of 19
However, full ground coverage will be permissible and setbacks will not be insisted upon.
(ii) to (xiii) ********
8. As per Clause 3 (i) of the Building Regulations for Special Areas, Unauthorized Regularized Colonies and Village Abadis, 2010, the provisions of Master Plan Delhi 2021, Building Bye-Laws etc. were made applicable in village abadis as well, therefore, after 17.01.2011, any construction in a village abadi can be carried out only after obtaining a sanction building plan.
9. The appellant admittedly, purchased the property in question in the year 2015 and thereafter raised construction over the same without any sanction building plan. The construction was raised after 01.06.2014, therefore they are not entitled for any protection under the Special Act well.
10. In view of the above facts and circumstances, 1 am of the considered view that the Quasi Judicial Authority has passed the impugned sealing order dated 26.02.2024 in accordance with law and I find no legal infirmity in the same. Accordingly, the appeal filed by appellants is dismissed."
9. In order to properly appreciate the facts of the case, the notices issued by the concerned authorities, with regard to the subject property are set out in seriatim, as under :
(i) The respondent No. 2 / Deputy Commissioner, West Zone MCD issued the show cause notice No. 6121 dated 05.02.2024 Unauthorised Construction File No. EE(B)1/WZ/UC/2024/60 under Sections 344(1) and 343 of the DMC Act to the appellant No.1, bringing to his notice that he had carried out unauthorized construction work in the subject property without obtaining necessary permission as required under Section 332 of the DMC Act in the shape MCD Appeal No. 01/2025 Imran Khan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. Page 12 of 19 of Ground Floor, First Floor and Second Floor.
Accordingly, the Assistant Engineer (Building), MCD as directed by the Commissioner, MCD under Section 491 of the DMC Act ordered to immediately stop unauthorized construction and in case the same was not stopped on receipt of notice, then action under Section 343 of the DMC Act alongwith 344(2) of the DMC Act and 344(4) of the DMC Act would be taken against him. He was directed to submit his reply within three days as to why the orders of demolition as required under Section 343 of the DMC Act, should not be passed in respect of the unauthorized constructing already carried out. (Reply dated 14.02.2024)
(ii) Order of Demolition of Building under Section 343 of the DMC Act vide notice No. 6239 dated 12.02.2024 was issued to appellant No.1, bringing to his notice that he had carried out unauthorized construction in the subject property and despite having been given an opportunity vide the above notice dated 05.02.2024, neither reply was submitted nor unauthorized construction was demolished also no proposal for regularization had been submitted within the stipulated period. Accordingly, he was directed to demolish the unauthorized construction within six days from the date of receipt of the said notice and in case, he did not comply, the MCD would itself initiate action for demolition and the expenditure incurred would be recovered from him as per the DMC Act.
MCD Appeal No. 01/2025 Imran Khan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. Page 13 of 19(iii) Order/Vacation Notice under Section 349 of the DMC Act dated 20.02.2024 asking the appellants to vacate the subject property within 24 hours of receipt of the notice failing which the demolition action/sealing action shall be carried out at the risk of and cost of the owners/occupiers, was sent to the appellant No.1.
(iv) Show cause notice dated 20.02.2024 No. EE(B)-I/WZ/SR/2024/08 under Section 345A of the DMC Act calling upon appellant No.1 to reply within three days from the receipt of the notice as to why the subject property should not be sealed as per applicable rules and regulations. (Reply dated 21.02.2024)
(v) Sealing order under Section 345A of the DMC Act dated 26.02.2024 was issued in the name of the appellant No.1 wherein, it has been stated that there was unauthorized construction in the subject property. Show cause notice under Section 345A of the DMC Act dated 20.02.2024 was served, however the reply of the said show cause notice was not found satisfactory as no substantial evidence was given to support the claim made in the reply. After having carefully considered the report, the Deputy Commissioner, MCD was satisfied that for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the DMC Act and preventing any dispute as to the nature and extent of unauthorized construction, it would be essential to order sealing of the said premises of the unauthorized construction.
MCD Appeal No. 01/2025 Imran Khan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. Page 14 of 19(vi) Vide notice dated 28.02.2024 in file No D/42/EE(B)-I/WZ/2023-24/0.I.(B) the demolition charges for demolition carried out on 27.02.2024 for Rs. 49,455/- being the demolition charges chargeable under Section 343(6) of the DMC Act, was asked to be deposited by appellant No.1.
(vii) Reminder dated 22.05.2024 bearing No. D/35/EE(B)-I/WZ/O.I(B)/2024 for deposit of demolition charges was again issued to the appellant No.1.
10. In the first appeal filed before the Ld. AT MCD the challenge was made to the show cause notice under Sections 344-I and 343 of the DMC Act dated 05.02.2024; show cause notice under Section 343 of the DMC dated 12.02.2024 and; show cause notice under Section 345A of DMC Act dated 20.02.2024 all of which culminated in the sealing order dated 26.02.2024 and execution dated 27.02.2024. The prayer was made only for de- sealing the subject property.
11. The sealing order under Section 345A of the DMC Act dated 26.02.2024 was issued in the name of the appellant No.1. The first challenge to the sealing order is that the same could not be issued by the MCD since the subject property was in the Lal Dora of Village Khayala, where the MCD has no jurisdiction. This contention was raised before the Ld. AT MCD and it has been rightly held by the Ld. AT MCD that as per Clause 3 (i) of the Building Regulations for Special Areas, Unauthorized Regularized MCD Appeal No. 01/2025 Imran Khan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. Page 15 of 19 Colonies and Village Abadis, 2010, notified on 17.01.2011 the provisions of Master Plan Delhi 2021, Building Bye-Laws etc. were made applicable in village abadis as well, therefore, after 17.01.2011, any construction in a village abadi can be carried out only after obtaining a sanctioned building plan. In the present case no sanction was obtained for the construction claimed to have been carried out on the plot in 2015.
12. The admitted case of the appellants is that the father of the appellants bought the subject property in 2015 and thereafter in 2015 itself, he constructed a one room set on the ground floor, one room set on the first floor, one room set on the second floor and one tin shed room on the third floor. Significantly, this construction was raised without any sanctioned building plan. Since the construction was raised admittedly after 01.06.2014, therefore, the appellants were not entitled to any protection under Section 3 (1) (c) (ii) the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011.
13. It has been claimed by the appellants that the Ld. AT MCD failed to appreciate the fact that vide order dated 28.09.2011 issued vide order No. TP/G/3426/11 and order dated 20.06.2012 issued vide order No. D-111/COM/SDMC/2012 regarding the sanction of building plan in the village abadi, it is crystal clear that there is no sealing or demolition to be done. I do not agree. A perusal of the said notices/circulars filed by the appellants before this Court shows that the same provided for the need to obtain sanction for MCD Appeal No. 01/2025 Imran Khan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. Page 16 of 19 building plans in the Lal Dora and there is no mention of exemption from sealing.
14. One of the grounds raised in the appeal is that the appellants did not receive any show cause notice under Section 345A of the DMC Act and therefore, the respondent lacked the inherent jurisdiction to pass the order of sealing under Section 345A of the DMC Act. As per the reply of the respondents, notices were duly served upon the appellants. Significantly, the above ground was not raised before the Ld. AT MCD. The show cause notice under Section 345A of the DMC Act dated 20.02.2024 was admittedly duly served upon the appellants and appellant No.4 Fardeen Khan also gave his reply dated 21.02.2024 to the said notice, which was found unsatisfactory. Also, as per the record of the AT MCD, in the list of documents filed by the appellants is the coloured print out of the photo of the sealing order under Section 345A of the DMC Act, duly pasted on the premises going to show that the appellants were aware of the sealing order.
15. In the course of arguments it was also argued by the Ld. Counsel for the appellants that some area of the 19 sq. yards plot was already constructed before the plot was bought in 2015 so that area cannot be sealed. Such a plea does not impress since the same is being raised for the first time at the stage of second appeal. Also, the document on the basis of which possession of the subject property is claimed, is a irrevocable GPA of November 2015 (date not mentioned) and Agreement to sell executed by one Lalit Yadav MCD Appeal No. 01/2025 Imran Khan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. Page 17 of 19 in favour of the appellants in which, there is no mention of any constructed area. The BSES Rajdhani Power Limited electricity bill dated 12.12.2023 of the ground floor in the name of appellant No.3 Mujeem Khan was produced before the Ld. AT MCD however, that also does not prove construction prior to 2015.
16. Interestingly, in the reply dated 14.02.2024 of appellant No.3 Mujeem Khan to the notice dated 05.02.2024, there is no mention of any construction prior to 2015. It has also been claimed therein that the said property was already sanctioned, but no document showing any sanction has ever been produced. In the reply dated 21.02.2024 to the notice dated 20.02.2024 under Section 345A of DMC Act given by appellant No.4 Fardeen Khan, no averment of any construction prior to 2015 has been made. In fact, in the first appeal filed before the Ld. AT MCD it is clearly mentioned that it was after purchase of the property bearing No. WZ-150, Khayala that the father of the appellants constructed on the said property in 2015. No house tax receipts or anything else has been produced to show that the construction is old or protected.
17. The application dated 30.05.2024 of Mujeem Khan, Najeem Khan and Fardeen Khan seeking sanction of the building bearing No. WZ-150, Khayala Village submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, MCD, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi also clearly mentions that "the said property was purchased in 2015 and instantly it was constructed but during that period we were not MCD Appeal No. 01/2025 Imran Khan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. Page 18 of 19 aware about the circular No. TP/G/7426/11 dated 28.09.2011 regarding the building sanctioned which is necessary in the Lal Dora abadi area..". This application makes it clear that the appellants were aware that they had unauthorizedly constructed on the subject property however, the grievance was that similar action of sealing and demolition was not taken against other unauthorized constructions and it is claimed that the appellants were being targeted because the appellant No.1 was implicated in a case under the NDPS Act. Prayer has been made in the said application to grant building sanction at the earliest. It is clear from the reply of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that as per clause 4.4.3 of MPD-2021 the minimum size of the residential plot is required to be 32 sq. meters hence, the subject property having an area of less than 32 sq. meters, cannot be regularized. Also, no sanctioned plan can be issued for the same.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Ld. AT MCD dated 03.05.2024. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Copy of this judgment alongwith the original appeal file of the Ld. AT MCD be sent to the Court of Ld. AT MCD for information and record. The appeal file be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ADITIAnnounced in the open Court ADITI CHOUDHARY on 6th day of February, 2026 CHOUDHARY 16:57:04 +0530 Date: 2026.02.06 (DR. ADITI CHOUDHARY) Principal District & Sessions Judge (West) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi MCD Appeal No. 01/2025 Imran Khan & Ors. v. MCD & Ors. Page 19 of 19