Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the MCD sought to take demolition action, a fresh application being CM. APPL. 77189/2025, has also been filed by the petitioner before this Court to direct the MCD to desist from carrying out any demolition activity in respect of the property in question.

16. It is further submitted that part-demolition action has been taken by the MCD, yesterday, i.e., 05th December, 2025, wherein, a brick guardroom and the toilet were demolished by the MCD. The photographs, as attached in the application being CM. APPL. 77189/2025, showcasing the said demolition action undertaken by the MCD, are reproduced as under:

21. Learned counsel appearing for the MCD also vehemently denies the submission of the petitioner that the MCD sought to carry out any demolition action on 10th October, 2024. He submits that the MCD fixes the demolition programmes in various properties, in a particular area. Therefore, the staff of the MCD carried the instruments for demolition, since there was demolition action fixed in the area in question. It is further pointed out that no demolition action was taken by the MCD on the property of the petitioner on 10th October, 2024.

(Emphasis Supplied)

25. Pursuant thereto, a demolition order dated 19 th October, 2022, was issued by the MCD directing demolition of a tin shed alongside mumty at the terrace and a toilet in the front set back at the ground floor of the property. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the ATMCD. However, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, as according to the petitioner, he had removed the unauthorised construction himself.

4. There was an earlier round of proceedings in respect of unauthorised construction in the subject property, which resulted in a demolition order dated 19.10.2022, issued by MCD, directing demolition of a tin shed alongside mumty at the terrace and a toilet in the front setback at ground floor of the property. The order was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal for MCD ["ATMCD"], but the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution as, according to the petitioner, he had removed the unauthorised construction himself.