$~72 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3191/2026 and CM APPL. 15318/2026 PREET SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Umesh Chandra Sharma, Mr. Vikas sharma, Ms. Chhaya sharma, Mr. Vipin kumar gupta, Mr. Yogesh aggarwal, Mr. Yogesh aggarwal, Mr. Mohit kumar, Mr. Lalit goyal, Ms. Khushbu khatri, Advocates. versus DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anuj Chaturvedi, Ms. Richa Dhawan, Ms. Yashita Jain, Advocates for R-1. Mr Rishi Kant Singh, Advocate for R- 1. Ms. Shahana Farah (Addl. Standing Counsel), Ms. Reya Paul, Ms. Amruta Padhi, Ms. Nidhi Singh, Advocates for DDA. Mr. Manu Chaturvedi, Standing Counsel for R-2/MCD. Mr. Brijesh Yadav, SPC along with Ms. Nikita, Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Mr. Anirudh Nagar, Mr. Hari Mohan and Mr. Kunal Chaudhary, Advocates for R-4. 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 20/04/2026 at 12:14:37 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 15.04.2026 (The matter has been taken up today, as 14.04.2026 was declared as a holiday on account of birthday of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.) 1. The status report has been filed by the respondent no 2.- the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). “1. That the deponent have gone through the contents of the above Writ Petition and as such, I am well conversant of the facts of the case and is competent to swear this status report in the form affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 2 / Municipal Corporation of Delhi in official capacity. 2. That at the very outset, the deponent submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioner against the answering respondent No. 2 is not maintainable. The contents of the writ petition in so far as it pertains to respondent No. 2 are wrong and denied unless those specifically admitted herein. The deponent is advised to file the status report in the form of affidavit reserving its right to file detailed counter affidavit, in case, if the necessity arises or if so, specifically directed by this Hon'ble Court. 3. That it is pertinent to mention here that by way of present petition filed under Article 226 the constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for direction thereby ordering for action on the encroachment by an illegal religious structure named Noori Masjid and Madarasa Jamiatul Isiah Noorul on the land acquired by DUSIB. 4. That vide order dated 12.03.2026, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi directed the respondent No. 2 i.e. MCD to file reply/status report in the present matter. That in compliance of the said direction the present status report is being filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. 5. That it is pertinent to mention that here that a park is situated at F-6, Sultanpuri, Delhi-110086. The Horticulture Department, Rohini Zone, has not maintained the same due to religious structure being built on the land in the park since long time (approximately year 1988) as mentioned in the handing/taking layout. That pursuant to the letter of the DUSIB dated 02.02.2026 cognizance has been taken and since the said Majsid is existing at the subject Site since 1988 accordingly as per GNCT notification dated 18.02.1991, matter is in the process of being refer to Religious Committee, Home Department, GNCTD. After the said permission is received from Religious Committee, Delhi' Govt, the religious structure will be removed from the said park/green area as per norms.” 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 20/04/2026 at 12:14:37 2. The MCD, thus, takes a position that there is an encroachment and the matter will have to be sent to the Religious Committee, the Home Department, Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) for appropriate directions. 3. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the decision of the MCD to send the matter to the Religious Committee is de hors the applicable notification. According to him, the construction is after the year 2009 and in those matters where the construction is after the year 2009, the Religious Committee approval is not required. Mr. Sharma’s submission is placed on record. 4. Let the MCD to re-examine the said position and if it finds that the construction is after the cut-off date, the necessary action shall be taken without the Religious Committee's approval. If the MCD is of the opinion that the construction was prior to cut-off date then the approval of the Religious Committee will have to be obtained. In case, the approval of the Religious Committee is required, let the same be obtained with due expedition. Let the Religious Committee to look into the grievance without any further delay. 5. Accordingly, the MCD, for its initial exercise to determine whether the constructions after the cut-off date or prior thereto, is granted four weeks’ time. Depending upon the same, the matter then will have to be sent to the Religious Committee. The Religious Committee to take the final decision within three months thereafter. 6. If the petitioner, thereafter, has any grievance, he shall be at liberty to approach the Special Task Force (STF). The STF to deal with the petitioner’s grievance with due expedition. 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 20/04/2026 at 12:14:37 7. With the aforesaid directions, the petition, along with pending application, stands disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J APRIL 15, 2026 aks 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 20/04/2026 at 12:14:37