W.P.(C) 8727/2026 p. 1 $~24 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8727/2026 with CM APPL. 40947/2026 and CM APPL. 40948/2026 RANJI THOMAS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Udit Malik, Ms. Rima Rao, Mr. Shobit Sabarwal, Advocates with petitioner in-person. versus THE COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ashutosh Guptta, ASC for MCD. Mr. Sachit Jolly, Senior Advocate with Ms. Mansha A. Jolly, Mr. Arjun Sawhney, Ms. Bhumika Kapoor, Advocates & Mr. Saakar Sardana, in- person. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL O R D E R % 06.07.2026 1. The present petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the order dated 11th March, 2026 (hereinafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the Appellate Tribunal, MCD (hereinafter ‘ATMCD’) in Appeal No. 391/2019 filed by the private respondent nos.2 to 4. 2. It is stated that the petitioner as well as the private respondents have filed appeals before the ATMCD against the demolition order dated 9th May, 2019, passed by the respondent no.1/MCD in respect of the portions 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 09/07/2026 at 11:04:16 W.P.(C) 8727/2026 p. 2 occupied by them. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is qua the dismissal of an application filed by the petitioner under Order I Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking impleadment in the appeal filed by the private respondents no.2 to 4. 4. The ATMCD relying upon the judgment of this Court in Hardayal Singh Mehta v. MCD, AIR 1990 Delhi 170 has dismissed the impleadment application while grating liberty to the petitioner to file documents and to orally argue the matter at the final stage. In Hardayal Singh Mehta v. MCD, (supra), this Court held that the proceedings under Section 343 of the DMC Act are not adversarial proceedings between the complainant and the owner/occupier of the property, but between the MCD and the person against whom demolition action is initiated. The ‘person aggrieved’ who may prefer an appeal under Section 343 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 is only the person whose building is sought to be demolished and not any other interested person. 5. The judgment in Hardayal Singh Mehta (supra) has been followed by this Bench recently in Malaya Kumar Chand v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 4150. Paragraph 12 of the said judgment is set out below:- “12. In my view, the present case is squarely governed by the judgment in Hardayal Singh (supra). Merely on account of furnishing information regarding unauthorised construction, the petitioner does not acquire the status of an “aggrieved person” or a necessary/proper party in the appeal. The interest of the petitioner has been adequately protected by the ATMCD in the impugned order by granting him liberty to file documents and argue the matter at the final stage.” 6. Mr. Sanjeev Sagar, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Aliji 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 09/07/2026 at 11:04:16 W.P.(C) 8727/2026 p. 3 Momonji & Co. v. Lalji Mavji & Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 379 in support of his contention that petitioner is a necessary party in the appeal filed by the private respondents. 7. I have perused the aforesaid judgment. The said judgment was in the context of a landlord seeking impleadment in the appeal filed by the tenant. The Supreme Court allowed the impleadment of the landlord on the ground that the landlord would have right title and interest in the property which is sought to be demolished. The said judgment would not assist the petitioner in the present case as admittedly, the petitioner is not the landlord/owner of the property in occupation of the private respondent nos. 2 to 4. 8. Counsel for the parties pointed out that the appeals filed by the petitioner as well as private respondents are listed together and are being taken up for consideration. 9. While dismissing the application of the petitioner, the ATMCD has permitted the petitioner to orally argue the matter at the stage of final arguments. 10. In view thereof, no grounds for interference in the impugned order dismissing the impleadment application filed by the petitioner are made out. 11. Mr. Sagar presses for a direction for joint inspection of the subject property by the private respondents no. to 4 by MCD in presence of the petitioner. 12. This aspect has already been dealt with in the impugned order and it has been noted that the inspection sought has already been carried ou\t by MCD in presence of the petitioner. Paragraph 4 of the impugned order is set out below:- “4. Coming to the application of the intervener seeking joint 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 09/07/2026 at 11:04:16 W.P.(C) 8727/2026 p. 4 inspection of the basement rear side portion, the said inspection has already been carried out by the MCD for which status report along with videography of the joint inspection in which intervener can be seen is already on record. Otherwise also the intervener has only limited rights to argue and cannot seek joint inspection at his choice.” 13. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to photographs filed along with the writ petition (pages 237 to 243) which show that the joint inspection has been carried out. 14. In any event, the petitioner does not have any vested right to a joint inspection of the property of a third party. 15. It is the contention of the petitioner that the private respondents no. to 4 have removed the load bearing wall of the basement which would affect the property of the petitioner in the ground floor. 16. In the appeal filed by the private respondents no. 2 to 4 before the ATMCD, MCD shall specifically deal with this aspect whether the load bearing wall has been removed by private respondents or not, and if so consequences thereof. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the abovesaid directions. 18. Pending applications stand disposed of. AMIT BANSAL, J JULY 6, 2026 ds 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 09/07/2026 at 11:04:16