Delhi District Court
Mohd. Iqbal vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 15 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MCD Appeal 12/2025
CNR No. DLCT01-008818-2025
1. Mohd. Iqbal
S/o Mohd. Arafeen
R/o H.No. 1852, Gali Pattewali,
Suin Walan, Delhi-110006.
2. Mst. Kashifa
W/o Mohd. Iqbal
R/o H.No.1852, Gali Pattewali,
Suin Walan, Delhi-110006.
3. Mohd. Atif
S/o Mohd. Iqbal
R/o H.No.1852, Gali Pattewali,
Suin Walan, Delhi-110006.
4. Aijaz Ahmad
S/o Mohd. Iqbal
R/o H.No.1852, Gali Pattewali,
Suin Walan, Delhi-110006.
(Appellants no.2, 3 and 4 being represented
through SPA-Appellant no.1) ........ Appellants
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner
9th floor, Dr. SPM Civic Centre,
Minto Road, New Delhi-110022. ........Respondent
Date of filing of appeal : 10.06.2025
Date of arguments : 04.11.2025
Date of Judgment : 15.11.2025
Digitally signed
by VIRENDER
VIRENDER KUMAR
BANSAL
KUMAR Date:
MCD appeal 12/2025 Mohd. Iqbal & Ors. Vs MCD Page 1 of 9 BANSAL 2025.11.15
16:52:04
+0530
JUDGMENT:
1. The present appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 03.06.2025 passed by the Ld. ATMCD whereby the appeal filed by Mohd. Iqbal and others (hereinafter referred as appellants) impugning the demolition order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the Assistant Engineer (Buildings) City SP Zone with respect to property no.810 measuring 272 sq. yds., Ward No.XI, comprising ground floor to third floor situated at Gali Ahmed Shah, Haveli Azam Khan, Chitli Qabar, Chandni Mahal, Darya Ganj, Delhi-06, was dismissed.
2. The case of the appellant in brief is that the property in dispute was purchased jointly by the appellants vide registered sale deed dated 27.04.2023 comprising of ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor. The property was also mutated in the record of the MCD. It was old construction. The structure has become weak and has also suffered damages with the passage of time. Conscious of the deteriorating conditions of the property and recognizing the need and necessity for immediate repairs, appellants moved an application dated 25.10.2023 to the MCD requesting to inspect the property to ascertain the status of the construction and the nature of repairs required, to ensure the safety, stability and habitability of the subject property and also to grant the requisite permission to the appellant to carry out the necessary repairs/retrofitting. They were shocked to receive the notice dated 16.02.2024 under Section 348 and 349 of DMC Act, 1957 declaring the entire building from ground floor to third Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL MCD appeal 12/2025 Mohd. Iqbal & Ors. Vs MCD Page 2 of 9 BANSAL Date:
2025.11.15 16:52:11 +0530 floor as unsafe declaring the same as dangerous. Appellants were also advised to vacate the premises and undertake the repairs. That notice was challenged in the Civil Suit No.406/2024 titled "Mohd. Kasif & ors. Vs MCD & ors". That suit was disposed of on 05.08.2024 in view of the compromise arrived at. Upon disposal of the suit, the MCD partly demolished the suit property and in order to make the suit premises habitable, appellant took necessary steps for repair/retrofitting and re-construction in terms of clause 1.7.3 of the Unified Building Bye Laws (UBBL), 2016 strictly in consonance with the directions contained in the notice dated 16.02.2024. Later on they received demolition order dated 10.03.2025 which was challenged before Ld. ATMCD in appeal no.195/2025. Ld. ATMCD without considering all the facts, dismissed the appeal which is under challenge in the present appeal.
3. Notice of the appeal was given to the MCD. Record of ATMCD and MCD was also called for.
4. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellants, Ld. Counsel for the MCD and perused the record.
5. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the property which was purchased by the appellants was around 7 decades old. It has suffered damages. Keeping in view the deteriorating condition of the property, they moved application dated 25.10.2023 before MCD requesting to inspect the property to ascertain the status of the premises and the nature of repairs required to ensure the safety, stability and habitability of the subject property and also to grant the requisite permission to the Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL MCD appeal 12/2025 Mohd. Iqbal & Ors. Vs MCD Page 3 of 9 BANSAL Date:
2025.11.15 16:52:19 +0530 appellant to carry out the necessary repairs/retrofitting. Ld. Counsel submitted that, though for effecting repairs no written permission/sanction is required as provided under clause 6.4.1 of the Building Bye Laws, 1983 now replaced by clause 2.1(d) of UBBL, 2016. Under these Bye Laws, the building owner i.e. appellants herein can carry out the plastering of walls, reproofing and renewal of roofs, flooring, replacing fallen bricks, pillars, beams etc. and reconstruction of damaged portions of the building to the same extent and specification as existing prior to the damage etc. The appellants in the meanwhile received notice dated 16.02.2024 under Section 348 and 349 of DMC Act declaring the entire property unsafe and dangerous. It was specifically mentioned in the notice itself to vacate the premises and undertake the repairs. Some occupants of the building filed Civil Suit No. 406/2024 titled "Mohd. Kasif & Ors Vs MCD & Ors. That suit was finally disposed of as compromised vide order dated 05.08.2024. In view of the settlement arrived at, the MCD carried out certain demolitions and the appellants in order to make the premises habitable, undertook the repairs and retrofitting.
6. Ld. Counsel submitted that thereafter, MCD passed the demolition order which was challenged before ATMCD. Ld. Counsel submitted that Ld. ATMCD as well as the MCD had acted hurriedly without considering all the facts and also going through the record in declaring the building unsafe. Ld. Counsel submitted that there is no impugned order dated 04.02.2025 either passed by respondent/MCD or impugned by the appellant.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL MCD appeal 12/2025 Mohd. Iqbal & Ors. Vs MCD Page 4 of 9 BANSAL Date:
2025.11.15 16:52:28 +0530 In fact, there is demolition order dated 10.03.2025 which was assailed by the appellants before the Ld. ATMCD. Ld. Counsel submitted that Ld. ATMCD has wrongly reached to the conclusion that reconstruction has been carried out. Ld. Counsel submitted that under clause 2.1(d)(ix) of UBBL, 2016 the reconstruction of the portion of building which has been damaged is exempted. Clause 331 and 332 of DMC Act, 1957 is not attracted. Ld. Counsel submitted that ATMCD has not considered all these facts and passed the order without considering the entire facts. It is prayed that under the circumstances order of Ld. ATMCD is not sustainable.
7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that Section 349 of DMC Act provides the procedure for demolition and repair of the building if it is deemed dangerous. It reads as follows-
However, when it comes to whether a sanctioned building plan is required, the Act does not explicitly mandate a new sanction if the reconstruction only involves removing the dangerous portions of the building. The reconstruction in such cases is generally viewed as part of the safety measures and not an unauthorized construction. Therefore, if the work is confined to demolishing the dangerous portions and restoring the structural safety of the building, a new sanctioned building plan is not required.
8. It is prayed that as in the present case also the dangerous portion was demolished and has been restored for the structural safety of the building, hence building plan was not required to be sanctioned. The appellants are fully covered u/s 349 of DMC Act. It is prayed that the order of Ld. ATMCD be set aside and the appeal be allowed.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL KUMAR Date: BANSAL 2025.11.15 16:52:33 +0530 MCD appeal 12/2025 Mohd. Iqbal & Ors. Vs MCD Page 5 of 9
9. Ld. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the short question is as to whether after the property has been demolished and has to be reconstructed whether the requirement of the building plan to be sanctioned is required or not. Ld. Counsel submitted that if the owner is merely repairing or restoring the earlier structure then there is no requirement of fresh sanction plans. Clause 15.7.3 of the UBBL, 2016 allows repairs and alteration without a fresh sanction. But in the present case, the building has been demolished because it was found to be dangerous and in dilapidated condition. It was reconstructed, hence clause 1.7.3 of UBBL, 2016 has to be followed and it mandates that in case building was unsafe and dangerous and has been demolished, then its reconstruction will be subject to the Bye Laws. The case of the appellant does not fall within the ambit of clause 2.0.1(d)(ix) as it only exempts reconstruction of the portion of the building which has been admitted. It does not cover the structure which has been reconstructed/re-erected after demolition. The structure was built after reconstruction/re- erection of the building and as per section 332 of DMC Act the sanctioned building plan is required. There is no such exemption culled out in case the building has been declared unsafe, demolished and has to be reconstructed. It is prayed that Ld. ATMCD has already considered all these facts and therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. Same be dismissed.
10. After considering the facts and the record, I found that admittedly there was an order holding that the building is dangerous and unsafe. A notice was sent to the appellants herein Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL Date:
BANSAL 2025.11.15 MCD appeal 12/2025 Mohd. Iqbal & Ors. Vs MCD Page 6 of 9 16:52:39 +0530 to vacate the building. A Civil Suit was also filed admittedly challenging that order wherein a settlement was arrived at and the case was disposed of vide order dated 05.08.2024. Thereafter, the building was demolished, though it is claimed that only a part was demolished, but during arguments in response to the show cause dated 04.02.2025 it was replied by the appellant herein vide reply dated 10.03.2025 that they have mentioned that the entire building has been reconstructed. The portion of the reply is as follows-
In view of the subject property having being declared dangerous by the MCD itself, therefore, there is /was no requirement for obtaining the fresh sanctioned building plan rather the reconstruction of the building from ground floor to third floor was required to be effected in confirmative with the direction as contained in the notice dated 06.02.2024 issued u/s 348/349 of DMC Act, as mentioned above.
11. This response further mentions under the heading 2. Reconstruction following MCD's Notice: No Unauthorized Construction and 3. No Need for Sanctioned Building Plan Post Demolition of Dangerous Portions as follows-
2. Reconstruction following MCD's Notice: No Unauthorized Construction The complainants in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi have alleged unauthorised construction; however, they seem to be unaware that the owner reconstructed the building in strict compliance with the notices issued under Sections 348 and 349 of the DMC Act. It is important to clarify that the owner's actions were part of the required demolition and reconstruction process mandated by the MCD, rather than an instance of unauthorised construction. Therefore, the action taken was not unlawful, and any claim regarding unauthorised construction is misplaced.
3. No Need for Sanctioned Building Plan Post Demolition of Dangerous Portions Digitally signed by VIRENDER KUMAR VIRENDER BANSAL KUMAR Date:
BANSAL 2025.11.15
16:52:45
MCD appeal 12/2025 Mohd. Iqbal & Ors. Vs MCD Page 7 of 9 +0530
Further, as the subject building has undergone reconstruction through the demolition of the dilapidated and dangerous portions, there is no requirement for a new sanctioned building plan as per the provisions of the DMC Act. The reconstruction was carried out in accordance with the prescribed guidelines to mitigate any safety hazards. The reconstruction process does not necessitate a new sanction for the building plan since the work undertaken was aimed at ensuring structural stability and public safety, not an extension or alteration of the building structure.
12. From these assertions of the appellants themselves it is clear that the entire building was demolished it being the old structure and also being declared dangerous and unsafe and the reconstruction was carried out. It is important to note that as per clause 1.7.3 of UBBL, 2016, in case the building which has been declared unsafe and demolished, its reconstruction is allowed subject to the Bye Laws. Clause 15.7.3 of the UBBL only talks about the repair and maintenance of the building. If building is unsafe and a portion needs to be demolished and reconstructed to restore safety, the work must adhere to safety standards. If no structural changes are being made, and the work is primarily to make the building safe, no new building sanction is necessary.
13. But, here in the present case the entire building has been demolished and reconstructed and therefore, it also does not fall within the ambit of Section 349 of DMC Act. The appellants were required to get the building plan approved after the entire structure has been demolished and reconstruction has been raised which has not been carried out.
14. Admittedly, there is no sanctioned building plan of the building which has now being raised. Under the circumstances, Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL MCD appeal 12/2025 Mohd. Iqbal & Ors. Vs MCD Page 8 of 9 BANSAL Date:
2025.11.15 16:52:52 +0530 in my opinion Ld. ATMCD has rightly held the same to be unauthorised. The building has also been raised after the cut off date as provided in the NCT of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011 and hence, does not fall in that protection also.
15. Under the circumstances, in my opinion there is no merit in the appeal. Same is dismissed.
16. Copy of the order be sent to Ld. ATMCD and MCD for necessary information and compliance.
17. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by VIRENDER VIRENDER KUMAR Announced in the open Court KUMAR BANSAL BANSAL Date: 2025.11.15 on 15th day of November, 2025 16:53:00 +0530 (Virender Kumar Bansal) Principal District & Sessions Judge
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi(D) MCD appeal 12/2025 Mohd. Iqbal & Ors. Vs MCD Page 9 of 9