Delhi District Court
North Delhi Muncipal Corporation vs Mukesh Garg on 23 August, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR BANSAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
CENTRAL DISTRICT
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
MCD appeal 10/2019
CNR No. DLCT01-006802-2019
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Civic Centre, S.P. Mukherjee Marg,
Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110002.
Through its Commissioner.
.......Appellant
VERSUS
1. Sh. Mukesh Garg
S/o Late Sh. Ganga Swaroop,
R/o 61/6, Ramjas Road,
Karol Bagh
New Delhi.
2. Union Bank of India
Asset Recovery Branch
26/28-D Connaught Place
New Delhi - 110001
Presently working from :
Union Bank of India
Asset Recovery Branch
M-35, First Floor,
Connaught Place
New Delhi - 110001
....... Respondents
Date of filing of appeal : 17.05.2019
Date of arguments : 19.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 23.08.2025 Digitally signed
by VIRENDER
VIRENDER KUMAR
BANSAL
KUMAR Date:
BANSAL 2025.08.23
15:33:35
+0530
MCD Appeal Nos. 10/ 2019 & 11/2019 MCD V. Mukesh Garg & Anr. Page 1 of 11
AND
MCD appeal 11/2019
CNR No. DLCT01-006804-2019
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Civic Centre, S.P. Mukherjee Marg,
Minto Road,
New Delhi - 110002.
Through its Commissioner.
.......Appellant
VERSUS
1. Sh. Mukesh Garg
S/o Late Sh. Ganga Swaroop,
R/o 61/6, Ramjas Road,
Karol Bagh
New Delhi.
2. Union Bank of India
Asset Recovery Branch
26/28-D Connaught Place
New Delhi - 110001
Presently working from :
Union Bank of India
Asset Recovery Branch
M-35, First Floor,
Connaught Place
New Delhi - 110001
....... Respondents
Date of filing of appeal : 17.05.2019
Date of arguments : 19.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 23.08.2025
Digitally signed
VIRENDER by VIRENDER
KUMAR
KUMAR BANSAL
BANSAL Date: 2025.08.23
15:33:45 +0530
MCD Appeal Nos. 10/ 2019 & 11/2019 MCD V. Mukesh Garg & Anr. Page 2 of 11
JUDGMENT
1. These two appeals are filed challenging the order dated 02.04.2019 vide which the Ld. ATMCD decided the appeal Nos. 05/18 and 06/18 with this consolidated order, as the issue raised in both the appeals is same, hence these appeals are heard together.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that appeal No. 05/18 was filed by Sh. Mukesh Garg (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant/respondent') challenging the sealing action dated 05.12.2017 in respect of basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor with its terrace in property No. 15A/42(Municipal No. 10463), WEA, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. The appeal No. 06/18 was filed by Sh. Mukesh Garg (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant/respondent') challenging the sealing action dated 05.12.2017 in respect of basement, ground floor, first floor, and second floor with its terrace in property No. 15A/43(Municipal No. 10466), WEA, Ajmal Khan Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
3. Appellant/respondent is the owner of both the properties which are in question. He has purchased the part property shown in red colour in the site plan from predecessor in title i.e. MVM Developers Pvt. Limited vide sale deed dated 25.09.2017. It is alleged that the officials of the MCD (hereinafter referred to as 'respondent/ appellant') sealed the property in question on Digitally signed VIRENDER by VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2025.08.23 BANSAL 15:33:57 +0530 MCD Appeal Nos. 10/ 2019 & 11/2019 MCD V. Mukesh Garg & Anr. Page 3 of 11 05.12.20217 without affording any opportunity to the appellant. Ld. ATMCD sent notices of the appeals to the MCD.
4. MCD filed its response alleging that properties in appeals have been amalgamated. The building plan with respect to property No. 15A/42 was sanctioned on 06.08.2010 in the name of Smt. Maya Vimal. The building plan with respect to property No. 15A/43 was sanctioned on 23.07.2010 in the name of Smt. Maya Vimal. Actions u/S 343 and 344(1) of DMC Act was initiated as there were deviations from the sanctioned plans dated 06.08.2010 and 23.07.2010 and excess coverage in basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor in both the properties, coupled with raising of columns at third floor in front portion and amalgamation of both the buildings.
5. Show Cause Notice was issued on 11.04.2013 but no reply was received. The demolition order was passed on 22.04.2013. Demolition Action was taken in the properties on 02.05.2013 wherein three panels of roof at side set back first floor were demolished and two panels of roof at side set back of ground floor were demolished and one shutter was also removed. Show Cause Notice of sealing was issued on 16.04.2013. The sealing order was passed on 02.05.2013. Ground floor of the property was sealed at four points. However, the seal was tampered, for which complaint was lodged with PS Karol Bagh on 22.05.2013. On application of the owner, temporary de-sealing for 15 days was allowed for rectification.
Digitally signed VIRENDER by VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2025.08.23 BANSAL 15:34:05 +0530 MCD Appeal Nos. 10/ 2019 & 11/2019 MCD V. Mukesh Garg & Anr. Page 4 of 11
6. Smt. Maya Vimal, owner has applied for regularization of unauthorized construction in property No. 15A/42, which was rejected. The information was sent vide letter dated 06.03.2014.
7. One civil suit bearing CS (Comm) No. 7/2015 is pending adjudication before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi with respect to the properties. It is alleged that appeals are barred by limitation as the properties were sealed on 02.05.2013 whereas the present appeals have been filed on 04.01.2018.
8. Ld. ATMCD after hearing the arguments and also going through the record and written submissions, passed the impugned order, whereby holding that the sealing action taken on 05.12.2017 and the sealing order dated 02.05.2013 are not legally sustainable in the eyes of law and quashed the same.
9. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present appeals have been preferred. Notice of the appeals were sent to appellant/respondent. Record of ATMCD was called.
10. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the appellant, Ld. Counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
11. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the building plan of property bearing nos.15A/42 and 15A/43, WEA, Karol Bagh were sanctioned. However, the owner of the property has not only amalgamated the aforementioned two properties but also raised construction contrary to the sanctioned building plan dated 06.08.2010 and 23.07.2010. The action u/s 343 and 344(1) of DMC Act was initiated and show cause notice dated Digitally signed VIRENDER by VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2025.08.23 BANSAL 15:34:15 +0530 MCD Appeal Nos. 10/ 2019 & 11/2019 MCD V. Mukesh Garg & Anr. Page 5 of 11 11.04.2013 was issued to the owner/builder and pasted at site on 15.04.2013. Ld. Counsel further submitted that the owner/builder preferred not to file any reply to the show cause notice and hence, demolition order was passed on 22.04.2013 issuing direction to demolish the unauthorized construction within six days failing which further action will be taken. On 02.05.2013, the demolition action was carried out. Ld. Counsel submitted that the demolition order was not challenged till date.
12. Ld. Counsel further submitted that a show cause notice as to why the property be not sealed was issued on 16.04.2013 and sealing order was also passed on 02.05.2013. The property was sealed at four points on ground floor.
13. Ld. Counsel submitted that the seal was found tampered on inspection on 14.05.2013 and accordingly a complaint was lodged with PS Karol Bagh and the property was again resealed on 29.05.2013.
14. The owner on 23.06.2014 requested for de-sealing and competent authority vide order dated 27.06.2014 has allowed temporary de-sealing of the property for 15 days to carry out the rectification and thereafter the property was re-sealed on 25.07.2014. Another application dated 14.07.2014 for de-sealing was also allowed by the competent authority. The property was temporary de-sealed on 26.08.2014 for 15 days and again re- sealed on 05.12.2017.
Digitally signed VIRENDER by VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2025.08.23 BANSAL 15:34:23 +0530 MCD Appeal Nos. 10/ 2019 & 11/2019 MCD V. Mukesh Garg & Anr. Page 6 of 11
15. Ld. Counsel submitted that the original owner/builder Smt. Maya Vimal has also applied for regularization of unauthorized construction of the property in question, but the same has been rejected.
16. Ld. Counsel submitted that the respondent herein, who had claimed to have purchased the property, has purchased the property as it is. The property was already sealed. They have never challenged the original order of sealing. The original owner has also not challenged the order of demolition dated 22.04.2013 and also the sealing order and sealing action taken on 02.05.2013.
17. Ld. Counsel submitted that Ld. ATMCD has failed to consider the fact that the sealing order was already conceded by the owner and that is why they have not challenged the sealing order. The subsequent buyer is also bound by the same. He has also not challenged the said order. In between, the property was de-sealed on 26.08.2014 on the request of the owner to carry out the rectification of the building and re-sealed on 05.12.2017. This sealing is in continuation of the earlier sealing order and the sealing action taken on 02.05.2013. No new action has been initiated.
18. Ld. Counsel submitted that the appellant /respondent has never challenged the sealing order and hence, the Ld. ATMCD going into the issue as to whether the sealing action dated 02.05.2013 is in accordance with law or not, was not called for.
Ld. ATMCD has exceeded the jurisdiction. VIRENDER Digitally signed
by VIRENDER
KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL
Date: 2025.08.23
BANSAL 15:34:47 +0530
MCD Appeal Nos. 10/ 2019 & 11/2019 MCD V. Mukesh Garg & Anr. Page 7 of 11
19. Ld. Counsel further submitted that so far as the action under challenge is concerned that is carried out only in continuation of the earlier order dated 02.05.2013, which the owner and the subsequent purchaser have already admitted and never challenged, hence that order has attained finality. It is prayed that under the circumstances the order of ATMCD is not sustainable. The same be set aside.
20. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/respondent submitted that according to the rules before sealing action has taken, it is required that MCD will serve the notice upon the owner/occupier. In this case the sealing has been carried out on 05.12.2017, but no notice whatsoever has been given to the appellant/respondent.
21. Ld. Counsel submitted that in fact, even when the earlier action was taken, no notice was served as observed by Ld. ATMCD, hence the initial order itself was illegal. Therefore, this contention that the property has been sealed in accordance with law earlier, is also not sustainable.
22. Ld. Counsel further submitted that even otherwise according to the MCD, the property was temporary de-sealed on 26.08.2014 for a period of 15 days only. There is nothing on record that the rectification has not been carried out by the owners thereafter. No inspection after 26.08.2014 has been carried out and no inspection report is on the file showing that no rectification has been carried out or that the unauthorized construction has yet not been removed. All of a sudden sealing Digitally signed VIRENDER by VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL MCD Appeal Nos. 10/ 2019 & 11/2019 MCD V. Mukesh Garg & Anr. Page 8 of 11 BANSAL Date: 2025.08.23 15:34:55 +0530 action has been taken after a period of more than 3 years without any notice and following the procedure. It is prayed that under the circumstances as no show cause notice of sealing was issued prior to 05.12.2017, the impugned action is not sustainable. Ld. ATMCD has rightly allowed the appeals and set-aside the sealing order and the action taken on 05.12.2017. It is submitted that there is no merit in appeal, same be dismissed.
23. After hearing the arguments and going through the record I found that in this case, the property was earlier sealed in 2013 finding that there is unauthorized construction and deviation from the sanctioned plan. Claim of the MCD is that action was taken in accordance with law, but Ld. ATMCD has rightly observed that there is nothing on record to show that show cause notice was duly served upon the owner/occupier of the property before carrying out the sealing in the year 2013, to be precise on 02.05.2013. Even during this appeal, MCD has not placed on record any such document that the original owner/occupier was served with the notice. The onus was upon the MCD to show and prove the same. It is required from the government agency to follow principle of natural justice and also the rules. But surprisingly, there is no such document placed on record.
24. Even if it is presumed for the sake of arguments that all the procedures were followed when the sealing order was passed on 02.05.2013. Record shows that on 26.08.2014, the property was de-sealed temporary for a period of 15 days on the request of owner i.e. MVM Developers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Holystar Natural VIRENDER Digitally VIRENDER signed by KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL Date: 2025.08.23 BANSAL 15:39:20 +0530 MCD Appeal Nos. 10/ 2019 & 11/2019 MCD V. Mukesh Garg & Anr. Page 9 of 11 Resources Pvt. Ltd. This de-sealing was done for a period of 15 days only that also for carrying out the rectification to bring the building in consonance with the sanctioned building plan. MCD claims that rectification was never carried out, but surprisingly as the de-sealing was only for 15 days, no action was taken by the MCD for more than 3 years. There is also nothing on record that whether any inspection was ever carried out by MCD after 26.08.2014 till the sealing action of the property was taken on 05.12.2017. For taking action of sealing, it is required that they must served show cause notice on the owner/occupier before taking any sealing action. If it would have been in continuation of the earlier order, then sealing must have been carried out within 15 days or immediately after passing of 15 days from 26.08.2014. Therefore, in my opinion this contention of MCD that the property was re-sealed on 05.12.2017 in continuation of the earlier order dated 02.05.2013, carries no weight.
25. Admittedly, no show cause notice was given before the sealing action on 05.12.2017. There is nothing on record that the deviation and unauthorized construction is still in existence as there is no inspection report placed on record.
26. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances in my opinion Ld. ATMCD has rightly allowed the appeals, as MCD has not followed the procedure laid down by the law and also the principles of natural justice. There is no merit in the appeals. The same are dismissed.
VIRENDER Digitally
VIRENDER
signed by
KUMAR KUMAR BANSAL
Date: 2025.08.23
BANSAL 15:35:30 +0530
MCD Appeal Nos. 10/ 2019 & 11/2019 MCD V. Mukesh Garg & Anr. Page 10 of 11
27. Record of the ATMCD be sent back with a copy of this order.
28. Appeal files be consigned to record room.
VIRENDER Digitally signed by
VIRENDER KUMAR
KUMAR BANSAL
Date: 2025.08.23
Announced in the open Court BANSAL 15:35:41 +0530
on 23rd Day of August, 2025 (Virender Kumar Bansal)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
Central District, Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi(D)
MCD Appeal Nos. 10/ 2019 & 11/2019 MCD V. Mukesh Garg & Anr. Page 11 of 11