W.P.(C) 8077/2026 p. 1 $~11 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8077/2026 with CM APPL. 38618/2026 and CM APPL. 38619/2026 SHRI TUSHAR MEHTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Mr. Vinay Jaidka, Ms. Aakriti Maheshwari & Mr. Kanav Bhatia, Advocates with petitioner in-person. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pawan Kumar Mittal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL O R D E R % 21.07.2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to set aside the order dated 2nd June, 2026 passed by Appellate Tribunal, MCD (‘ATMCD’). By the impugned order, the ATMCD has held that there is no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner and has dismissed the interim application filed on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present matter are as follows: 2.1. The petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) 274/2026 before this Court, seeking quashing of the show cause notice dated 22nd August, 2025. 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 25/07/2026 at 12:00:59 W.P.(C) 8077/2026 p. 2 2.2. The said petition was disposed of, by directing that the petitioner shall be granted an opportunity of further hearing by MCD. 2.3. Pursuant to a further personal hearing on 28th January, 2026, a demolition order was passed by MCD on 28th April, 2026 under Section 343(1) of the DMC Act (Annexure P-19 to the writ petition). The operative portion of the said order is set out below: “ 1. The property under reference is a DDA Flat. It is concomitant fact to state that these are the flats allotted by the D.D.A. The permissibility of construction in such DDA Flats is governed by a policy contained in the Office Order No. D/506/EE(B)HQ/2003 dated 13.08.2003. Under the said policy, certain additions / alterations falling within the ambit of the aforesaid policy can be permitted subject to fulfilment of conditions stipulated therein. 2. The flat under reference is situated at fourth floor. The applicant is the owner of third floor, and the unauthorized construction booked is above third floor. 3. As per record, the building plans for additions /alterations in the said DDA Flat at third floor for which a letter No. D-306/EE(Bldg)- II/SZ/2012 dated 31.05.2012 was sent to the applicant namely Shri S. Pavamani, and the plans were valid upto 30.05.2014. But there exists the construction beyond the said sanctioned building plans, which is deviation in nature and cannot be compounded. 4. The applicant himself has admitted existence of construction in the year 2012, but to avail relief upto 31.12.2026 under The National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second (Amendment) Act, it is pre-requisite that the construction should be in existence on 07.02.2007. But there is no such document submitted by the applicant. It is relevant to state that if there is any documentary evidence regarding existence of booked unauthorized construction prior to 07.02.2007, the demolition action can be kept in abeyance upto 31.12.2026 as per the provisions of said Act. 5. In the Sale-Deed dated 06.05.2025 executed by Shri John Arun Pavamani in favour of Shri Tushar Mehta, there is no mention of existence of any construction at terrace of Flat No.935. 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 25/07/2026 at 12:00:59 W.P.(C) 8077/2026 p. 3 6. Any directions in the court case quoted by the applicant shall be binding upon both the parties. However, the role of Department is confined to bringing the construction activity within the parameters of the said policy dated 13.08.2003. Whereas based on the above examination, it can be concluded that the applicant has carried out unauthorised construction in the flat under reference, and the construction booked by the Department is against the Standard Plan of DDA. The contentions of the applicant, as contained in the reply quoted above, are not tenable for the aforesaid grounds. Such construction is liable for punitive action as per DMC Act, 1957 until and unless the same is got regularized by the applicant, and as per record, excess permissible construction has not been got regularized so far. Hence, the unauthorised construction in the property is liable for demolition action under Section 343 of DMC Act-1957. I, Assistant Engineer- Building Department - South Zone, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, vested with the powers of the Commissioner-M.C.D. under Section 343 (1) read with Section 491 of DMC Act, hereby order the applicant to demolish the unauthorised construction, as has been booked by the Department, within fifteen days from the receipt of this order, failing which it will be demolished by the M.C.D. at his / her risk and cost.” (emphasis supplied) 2.4. The petitioner filed an appeal before the ATMCD against the said order, along with an application for interim relief. 2.5. On 2nd June, 2026, the interim application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the impugned order passed by the ATMCD. The relevant extracts from the impugned order are set out below: “3. I have perused the record. The show cause notice dated 22.08.2025 was duly replied by the appellant and the appellant in that reply stated that the erstwhile owner has raised construction of a room and washroom at the terrace of the third floor in the year 2012-2013. It was claimed that this construction was duly approved by the MCD. 4. I have seen this sanction obtained by the previous owner in the office record. The predecessor of the appellant was permitted to construct only a barsati room on the terrace of the third floor but either he or the appellant constructed two rooms and a toilet. Whether, the same was raised by the appellant or by his predecessor makes no difference since the unauthorized construction was raised after 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 25/07/2026 at 12:00:59 W.P.(C) 8077/2026 p. 4 obtaining sanction in the year 2012-2013 and the same is not protected under National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provision) Second Amendment Act, 2011 being raised after 08.02.2007. The appellant himself admits that this construction was raised after 08.02.2007. 5. Coming to the aspect of service of show cause notice upon the person at whose instance erection has commenced, it is sufficient to note that the section 444 of the DMC Act provides service of show cause notices and it is required to be served on the owner or occupier of the land or building as the case may be. The appellant is owner as well as the occupier as on date. The MCD is not supposed to serve notice on the predecessor of the appellant who otherwise has passed away and the construction alleged to be raised in the year 2012-2013. 6. The respondent dealt with all the contentions of the appellant in the impugned order which is a speaking order. The appellant deliberately did not file copy of the complete sale deed and only first four pages were filed as the remaining pages reflect that only third floor was in existence when the property was purchased by the appellant.” (emphasis supplied) 3. As can be discerned from the aforesaid observations made by ATMCD, the demolition order was passed by the MCD after considering the response filed by the petitioner and grant of personal hearing to the petitioner. The impugned order notes that the previous owner of the premises was permitted to construct only a barsaati room on the terrace floor, however what was constructed was two (2) rooms and a toilet. The impugned order also notes that the construction was carried in the year 2012-13, hence protection under National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provision) Second Amendment Act, 2011 was not available. 4. Having heard the counsel for the parties, this Court does not find any infirmity in the aforesaid findings of the ATMCD, which require interference by this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. The petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. 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 25/07/2026 at 12:00:59 W.P.(C) 8077/2026 p. 5 6. To be noted, the appeal filed by the petitioner has been fixed for hearing by the ATMCD on 13th October, 2026. 7. Needless to state, the ATMCD shall decide the appeal on merits after considering the submissions of the petitioner on the said date and the passing of the impugned order shall not influence the final decision of the appeal on merits. 8. Pending applications stand closed. AMIT BANSAL, J JULY 21, 2026 at 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 25/07/2026 at 12:00:59