Anju Kapur v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ANR.

$~23 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 168/2026 ANJU KAPUR .....Appellant Through:

Mr. Piyush Kalra, Mr. Vijay Nair, Mr.

Saqib M and Ms. Aishwarya Jain, Advs.

Versus

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Harshit Chopra, SC, MCD with Ms. Swati Tiwari and Mr. Khushal Chand Agarwal, Advs. for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R

% 30.03.2026 CM Nos.19624/2026 & 19625/2026 1.

Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2.

The applications stand disposed of.

LPA 168/2026 3.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

4.

This intra-Court appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 11.03.2026, passed by the learned Single Judge whereby W.P.(C) No. 3149/2026 which was instituted by the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that the show cause notice in respect of the subject construction was issued on 10.07.2024 and demolition order was passed on 05.09.2024, however, despite availability of a statutory remedy in case the appellant was aggrieved by the 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 02/04/2026 at 11:45:17

demolition order, he did not take recourse to such remedy. 5.

On the aforesaid ground the writ petition has been dismissed. 6.

Learned counsel for the appellant, however, draws our attention to the prayer clause of the writ petition, a perusal of which reveals that the appellant made two prayers in the writ petition, namely (1) quashing the show cause notice dated 10.07.2024 and order of demolition order dated 05.09.2024 and

(2) issuing a direction to carry out the inspection of Flats/ Apartments in Adarsh Kunj Apartment, Sector 13, Rohini, Delhi-110085 and carry out uniform action against entire society.

7.

So far as prayer (1) is concerned, we do not find any good ground to interfere in this intra-Court appeal to which learned counsel representing the appellant also agrees. However, he states that prayer (2) has not been adjudicated by the learned Single Judge.

8.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, without interfering with the order passed by the learned Single Judge which is under challenge herein, we permit the appellant to file a fresh petition for seeking remedy in respect of prayer (2) made in the underlying petition. 9.

The appeal thus stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ TEJAS KARIA, J MARCH 30, 2026 N.Khanna 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 02/04/2026 at 11:45:17