Meena Babbar v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And ORS

$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4024/2025 MEENA BABBAR .....Petitioner Through:

Ms. Suruchi Gera, Proxy Counsel (through VC) versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through:

Mr. Vishal Chadha, Advocate for respondent no. 1/MCD.

(M): 9810641379 Email:

advocatevishalchadha@gmail.com Mr. Puneet Yadav, SPC with Mr.

Kapil Dev Yadav, GP, SI Delhi Police for respondent no. 4.

(M): 9999388384 Email:

puneetyadavadvocate@gmail.com

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA % 22.04.2025

O R D E R

1.

The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to restrain respondent no. 2 from carrying out illegal construction on the ground floor of the property bearing no. FC-130, Tagore Garden, without obtaining the requisite permission and from altering the basic structure of the ground floor.

2.

This Court notes that pursuant to the directions of this Court vide order dated 01st April, 2025, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Municipal Corporation of Delhi ("MCD"), wherein, it has been stated as follows:

"xxx xxx xxx The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

xxx xxx xxx"

3.

A perusal of the aforesaid Status Report filed on behalf of respondent/MCD, shows that it is the categorical stand of the MCD that only minor renovation work has been carried out by the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 has shifted the non-load bearing wall by approximately two feet, which, as per the MCD, is permitted in terms of Clause 2.0.1(d) of the Unified Building Bye-Laws.

4.

It is further the case of the MCD that no permission is required from the MCD for the aforementioned work.

5.

Accordingly, considering the aforesaid stand of the MCD, no further directions are required to be passed by this Court. 6.

However, at this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has objection to the affidavit filed on behalf of the MCD.

7.

This Court is of the view that once the Statutory Authority has submitted, by way of affidavit, that the renovation work is permissible under law, this Court will not go into any disputed questions of facts. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

8.

In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by any statements made by the MCD, the petitioner is at liberty to seek remedies, in accordance with law. 9.

Noting the aforesaid, the present writ petition, along with the pending applications, is accordingly, disposed of.

MINI PUSHKARNA, J APRIL 22, 2025 ak The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.