$~89 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 565/2025 MS. URMI RANA & ORS. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sushil Kumar and Mr. Prashant Singh, Advocates. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Mr. Sachin Singh Shah, Mrs. Shashi Gupta and Mr. Arrav Gupta, Advocates for MCD. Ms. Neha Rastogi, SPC alongwith Mr. Animesh Rastogi and Mr. Vaibhav Singh, Advocates for R2. Mr. Abhimanyu Garg, Adv. for R3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA % 21.01.2025 O R D E R 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. 2666/2025 2. Application stands disposed of. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking that the respondents be restrained from obstructing the construction work of a boundary wall around the land bearing Khasra no. 108/304 (0-6) & 108/470 (0- 6) total admeasuring 12 biswas situated in the village Khera Kalan, Delhi. W.P.(C) 565/2025 4. The petitioners claim to have the title documents in respect of the said land. It is submitted that there is no dispute pending before any court or authority regarding the title, possession and rights of the petitioners in respect of the said land. It is further submitted that the said land has been urbanised This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/01/2025 at 12:05:45 videNotification dated 20.11.2019 bearing no. F7(128)/ DLB/ 2019/ 000580156/ 14600-15 issued in exercise of power as conferred by the Section 507(a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957. 5. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the petitioners have been prevented from building a boundary wall around the land in question by the respondent no.2. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2, who appears on advance notice, submits that they have no objection to the petitioners constructing a boundary wall subject to compliance of Stage-4 restrictions of the Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), issued by the Commission for Air Quality Management (CAQM). 7. Mr. Mukesh Gupta, learned counsel for the MCD, submits that the documents filed alongwith the present petition do not fully substantiate the assertions of the petitioners as regards title of the land in question. 8. After some hearing, with consent of respective counsel, it is directed that subject to the petitioners showing his title documents in respect of the concerned property to the concerned officials of MCD, the MCD shall not obstruct in construction of the boundary wall as sought by the petitioners. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further agree that the petitioners shall not claim any special equities on account of construction of boundary wall and if it is found that there is any infirmity in the title of the petitioners, appropriate action for demolition of boundary wall shall be taken in accordance with law. It is directed accordingly. 10. No further orders are required to be passed in the present petition and the same is accordingly disposed of. JANUARY 21, 2025/at SACHIN DATTA, J This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/01/2025 at 12:05:45