W.P.(C) 8747/2026 $~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8747/2026 with CM APPL. 41097/2026 and CM APPL. 41098/2026 DHARMENDER PANWAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak, Advocate. versus MCD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Precious K. Kelson, advocate for MCD. Mr. Vivek Nilesh Goyal, Ms. Nikita Goyal and Mr. Naresh Chand Goyal, Advocates for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL O R D E R % 06.07.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to stop the unauthorized construction being carried out by respondent no.4 at his property near Plot no. 10 in front plot no 893-A , Ward No. 8, Kimaya Garden Oppt Multan Dharamshala, Mehrauli, New Delhi -110030 (‘subject property’). 2. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-MCD on advance notice submits that the subject property has been booked and demolition programme has been fixed for 8th July, 2026. 3. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3/ SHO, PS Mehrauli submits that the petitioner is repeatedly filing petitions before this Court in respect of unauthorized construction. 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 08/07/2026 at 12:19:11 W.P.(C) 8747/2026 4. The petitioner himself has stated in the writ petition that the petitioner resides at a distance of 550 mtrs. from the subject property. 5. It is a settled position of law that only a person who is an immediate neighbour and is affected by the unauthorised construction can file petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking demolition. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 9470/2021 Shiv Kumar v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation and W.P.(C) 16811/2025 Tarun Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, wherein it was observed that a writ petition filed by a person who is not directly affected and fails to establish locus standi, particularly when based on mere incidental proximity to the subject property, is not maintainable. 6. In my considered view, the petitioner is not a person directly affected by the unauthorized construction. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 7. Needless to say, respondent-MCD shall take appropriate action in accordance with law. 8. Pending applications stand disposed of. 9. All rights, contentions and legal remedies of the respondent no.4 are kept open. AMIT BANSAL, J JULY 6, 2026 Vivek/- 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 08/07/2026 at 12:19:11