Delhi District Court
Surender Singh vs Mcd on 17 December, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AMIT KUMAR:
ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-PRESIDING OFFICER,
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, M.C.D., DELHI.
APPEAL NO. 700/ATMCD/2024
APPEAL NO. 701/ATMCD/2024
Sh Surender Singh
S/o Late Shri Rattan Singh
R/o H.No. 230, Village & PO Pitampura
Delhi-110034
........... Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner
Civic Centre, Minto Road
New Delhi
......... Respondent
Date of Filing of Appeal : 30.08.2024
Date of Judgment : 17.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. These are two appeals challenging the sealing order dated 13.08.2024 in appeal no. 700/24 and the demolition order dated 02.12.2019 in appeal no. 701/24 passed in respect of the property of the appellant measuring 23.5 sq. yd. falling in lal dora of Village - Pitampura, Delhi. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these two appeals are that the appellant claims to be the owner of this property by Law of Succession and claims that the construction in the property on ground and first floor is old and occupied and the entire construction is in existence much prior to 01.06.2014 and is protected under National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provision) Second Amendment Act 2011. It is stated that in the year 2012, the respondent proposed to construct an underground parking and therefore issued notice dated 09.06.2012 requiring the occupiers of Khasra No. 412 to vacate their respective portions. The respondent demolished front portion of the property of the appellant as the said portion was coming in the alignment of the parking and an area measuring 90 sq. yd. approximately of the property of A. No. 700-24 & 701-24 Surender Singh Vs MCD Page No. 1 of 3 the appellant was damaged. The respondent thereafter issued notice dated 07.12.2018 asking the owners to either repair or vacate their property being dangerous. The appellant wrote a letter dated 13.08.2019 to the respondent seeking permission to repair his property and carried out the repair work. Thereafter, the respondent issued a show cause notice dated 13.09.2019 claiming unauthorized construction of ground and first floor without sanction building plan. Same was replied on 20.09.2019 and yet the demolition order dated 02.12.2019 was passed. It was followed by show cause notice dated 19.03.2020 and thereafter, sealing order dated 13.08.2024 was passed without considering the merits of the reply of the appellant dated 29.05.2020.
2. Both these orders have been challenged on the ground that the same were passed without appreciating the reply of the appellant and without appreciating that appellant was carrying out only repair and renovation work in the already existing property which was damaged due to removal of the strip of land of the appellant coming in alignment of the parking constructed by the respondent and therefore, the orders are required to be set aside.
3. Ld. counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued that the appellant raised fresh construction under the pretext of repair and same was booked being constructed without sanction building plan and therefore, there are no merits in these appeals.
4. I have perused the record. As per appellant, a strip of the land of the appellant was demolished as was coming in the alignment of the underground parking constructed by the respondent and subsequently, vide notice dated 7.12.2018, the property was declared dangerous and was required to be repaired or vacated. The appellant did not write any letter to respondent that a strip of his land has been demolished or acquired for parking site. Further, the appellant was required only to repair his property for the said damage but under the guise of repairing, fresh construction was raised which require prior approval in the form of sanction building plan. The photographs available in the office record clearly show that at the time of booking on 13.09.2019, fresh construction was raised in the property from ground level by raising columns and walls. The status reports filed by the respondent as well as the police complaint dated 27.08.2019 show an entire new construction being raised in the property which cannot be A. No. 700-24 & 701-24 Surender Singh Vs MCD Page No. 2 of 3 said to be repair work. Though the damage to the property of the appellant might have been caused because of construction of underground parking by the respondent, yet only repairs could have been carried out. The appellant however demolished the entire property and raised fresh construction from ground level as clearly visible from the photographs and complaint by police to the respondent. Fresh construction without sanction building plan was rightly booked and action was rightly taken by sealing the property.
5. There is no infirmity in the sealing and demolition order.
6. Both the orders are upheld.
7. The appeals are dismissed.
8. Record of the respondent, if any, be returned along with copy of this order and appeal file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court today i.e. on 17.12.2025 (AMIT KUMAR) Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-P.O. Appellate Tribunal, MCD, Delhi A. No. 700-24 & 701-24 Surender Singh Vs MCD Page No. 3 of 3