Braham Prakash vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors.

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):

W.P.(C) 6852/2025 has been filed seeking directions to respondent nos. 1 to 3 for taking action against the unauthorized and illegal construction upon the agricultural land, area falling in Khasra Nos. 120, 121/1 and 130, situated in revenue estate of Village Siraspur, Delhi-110042, being carried out by respondent nos. 4 and 5.

W.P.(C) 9018/2025 has been filed seeking directions to respondent nos. 1 to 3 for taking action against the illegal and unauthorized construction being raised by respondent no. 4 over the entire land falling in Khasra Nos. 72 and 89, situated in revenue estate of Village Siraspur, Delhi-110042.

This Court notes that vide order dated 17^th September, 2025, this Court had recorded that a Demolition Order has already been passed with respect to the unauthorised construction on the lands, which are subject matter of the present writ petitions.

The relevant portion of the order dated 17^th September, 2025, is reproduced as under:

xxx xxx xxx”

Today, applications have been filed on behalf of the applicants namely, Mr. Atul Aggarwal and Mr. Anuj Kumar Jain, being CM APPL. 65220/2025 in W.P.(C) 6852/2025 and CM APPL. 65188/2025 in W.P.(C) 9018/2025.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that neither the petitioner, nor respondent no. 4, are the owners of the lands in question. He submits that it is the applicants, who are the owners of the lands in question.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants relies upon two sale deeds dated 14^th November, 2024, executed in favour of the applicants by the predecessor-in-interest of the lands in question, i.e., Sh. Gajinder Yadav.

The sale deed dated 14^th November, 2024, executed in favour of Mr. Anuj Kumar Jain, describes the land in respect of which sale deed has been executed in favour of Mr. Anuj Kumar Jain, as under:

xxx xxx xxx”

The other sale deed dated 14^th November, 2024, executed in favour of Mr. Atul Kumar Gupta, Mr. Nitin Rana and Mr. Yogesh Maheshwari, wherein, details of the land in respect of which sale deed has been executed in their favour, is reproduced as under:

xxx xxx xxx”

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that though Mr. Atul Aggarwal is also one of the owners with respect to certain portion of lands in question, however, inadvertently sale deed in his favour has not been placed on record and thus, has handed over a copy of another sale deed dated 14^th November, 2024 to this Court, which is taken on record.

As per the aforesaid sale deed dated 14^th November, 2024, in favour of Mr. Atul Aggarwal, the details of the land under the ownership of Mr. Atul Aggarwal, are as follows:

xxx xxx xxx”

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants in the aforesaid applications submits that since the applicants are the owners of the aforesaid lands, they are within their rights to carry out construction with respect to godowns as the same is allowed in urbanized villages under the Master Plan for Delhi (“MPD-2021”).

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that the village in question has already been urbanized on 16^th May, 2017.

Thus, it is submitted that the applicants, being the owners of the aforesaid lands in question, are entitled to construct godowns thereon. Thus, he submits that the applicants shall approach the Delhi Development Authority (“DDA”) for the purposes of regularization of the construction.

Learned counsel appearing for DDA submits that a Demolition Order has already been passed on behalf of the DDA and it is only after the passing of the Demolition Order by the DDA that the aforesaid sale deeds have been executed in favour of the applicants. She further submits that the present petitions show that there are civil disputes between the parties, wherein, the respective parties are claiming rights over the lands in question.

She, thus, submits that the parties ought to approach the Civil Court, as far as their dispute with regard to ownership of the lands is concerned.

Learned counsel appearing for the DDA in W.P.(C) 6852/2025 & W.P.(C) 9018/2025 has handed over the respective counter affidavits filed on behalf of DDA, which are taken on record.

Learned counsel appearing for the DDA submits that the area in question was declared as a “Development Area” vide notification dated 10^th September, 2021, issued under Section 12 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (“DD Act”). Thus, it is submitted that any construction or activity carried on the land is subject to the control and regulation of the DDA.

It is further submitted on behalf of the DDA that as violations were noticed on the lands in question, Show Cause Notices under Section 30 of the DD Act have already been issued by the DDA, thereby, invoking the statutory powers to prevent the unauthorised/illegal development in the area in question, pursuant to which, Demolition Orders have also been passed by the DDA.

At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants submits that though Show Cause Notices and Demolition Orders are stated to have been issued by the DDA, however, since the applicants are the owners of the lands in question, no specific Show Cause Notice or Demolition Order has been received by them.

He, thus, submits that the DDA ought to follow the procedure as prescribed under Section 30 of the DD Act.

However, per contra, learned counsel appearing for the DDA submits that the Show Cause Notices as well as the Demolition Orders were duly pasted at site and that the respective owners of the land are fully aware of the orders having been passed by the DDA.

Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court is of the view that as the present petitions have been filed only qua the issue of unauthorized construction, this Court would not go into the issue as regards the ownership or title of the lands in question.

Accordingly, the respective parties are directed to approach the Civil Court, in case of any dispute they wish to raise as regards the title and ownership of the lands in question.

As regards the DDA, this Court notes that in W.P.(C) 6852/2025, a Show Cause Notice was issued by the DDA on 06^th November, 2023, which is reproduced as under:

Further, the DDA issued an order for sealing-cum-demolition on 14^th November, 2024, which is reproduced as under:

Subsequently, the DDA has also undertaken partial demolition action, photographs of which are on record.

As regards W.P.(C) 9018/2025, this Court notes that DDA had issued a Show Cause Notice dated 03^rd January, 2025, which is reproduced as under:

The aforesaid Show Cause Notice was followed by another Show Cause Notice dated 29^th August, 2025, which is reproduced as under:

Subsequently, a Sealing-cum-Demolition Order dated 11^th September, 2025 has been issued, which is reproduced as under:

Perusal of the aforesaid Show Cause Notices and the Demolition Orders passed by the DDA, shows that in the absence of specific information as regards the ownership of the land in question, the Show Cause Notices and the Demolition Orders have been issued by the DDA to owner/builder of the respective Khasras.

This Court takes note of the submission made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants in CM APPL. 65220/2025 in W.P.(C) 6852/2025 and CM APPL. 65188/2025 in W.P.(C) 9018/2025, that since the said applicants are the owners of the lands in question, they may be granted opportunity of hearing, before any action is taken.

This Court also takes note of the submission made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicants that the applicants shall also file an application for regularization of the construction undertaken by the applicants on the lands owned by them before the DDA, since construction of godowns is allowed as per MPD 2021.

Considering the submissions made before this Court and considering the fact that the DDA has already taken cognizance of the unauthorized construction over the lands, which are subject matter of the present petitions, it is directed that DDA shall take requisite action against the unauthorized construction, in accordance with law.

However, since the applicants in the applications being CM APPL. 65220/2025 in W.P.(C) 6852/2025 and CM APPL. 65188/2025 in W.P.(C) 9018/2025, have not been given any hearing or opportunity of filing reply, it is directed that the said applicants shall be granted opportunity of filing reply before the DDA, as well as an opportunity of personal hearing.

Accordingly, it is directed that the applicants in CM APPL. 65220/2025 in W.P.(C) 6852/2025 and CM APPL. 65188/2025 in W.P.(C) 9018/2025, shall make a representation before the DDA, within a period of three weeks from today, along with the relevant documents.

Upon the representation being made by the aforesaid applicants, the said applicants shall be duly granted hearing by the concerned DDA officials, and a speaking order shall be passed therein.

The applicants are also granted liberty to file any regularization application before the DDA, which shall be considered by the DDA, in accordance with law.

It is clarified that hearing shall be given by the DDA to the applicants in terms of Section 30 of the DD Act.

Needless to state, in case, the DDA after hearing the applicants, as aforesaid, comes to a conclusion that unauthorized construction has been carried out by the aforesaid applicants, it shall be at liberty to take action against the said unauthorized construction.

In case, the applicants are aggrieved by any decision taken by the DDA, their right to challenge the same is reserved.

It is further directed that in case, the aforesaid applicants submit an application to the DDA within a period of two weeks from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the lands of the applicants, as noted above, during the pendency of the proceedings before the DDA.

The DDA is also directed to ensure that no further unauthorized construction takes place over the lands, which are the subject matter of the present petitions.

Further, the applicants as aforesaid, are restrained from carrying out any further unauthorized construction over the lands in question.

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion over the issue of right and title of the lands in question.

Rights and contentions of all the parties in that regard are kept open.

With the aforesaid directions, the present petitions, along with the pending applications, are accordingly disposed of.