Sudesh Vig v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ANR.

$~43 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 6238/2026 with CM APPL. 30564/2026 and CM APPL. 30565/2026 SUDESH VIG .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, Mr. Naman Arora, Mr. Shubham Bhati and Mr. Vishant Prakash, Advocates.

versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Kunal Rawat, Advocate for R-1.

Mr. S.C. Singhal, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

O R D E R

% 07.05.2026 1.

The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: 2.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been living in the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

property bearing no.11302-03, Doriwalan, Karol Bagh, New Delhi since 1965. The building plan was sanctioned on 8th February 1967. 3.

A writ petition being W.P.(C) 1791/2015 was filed on behalf of respondent no.2 seeking a direction to the respondent no.1/MCD to close the unauthorized opening in the property of the petitioner which faces the property of respondent no.2. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 19th March, 2015. The relevant extracts from the said order are set out below:

4.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a speaking order was by the MCD on 1st September, 2015. The relevant extracts from the speaking order are set out below:

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

5.

This order was challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal MCD ('ATMCD'). However, the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 15th October, 2025. Paragraph 5 of the said order is set out below:

6.

The petitioner filed another appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi which was dismissed vide order dated 12th March, 2026 on the ground that the appeal was time barred. Thereafter, a communication dated 28th April, 2026 was The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

sent by MCD to the petitioner directing the petitioner to close down the window/opening towards the property of respondent no.2. 7.

The aforesaid orders have been challenged in the present writ petition. 8.

Mr. Rajiv Bajaj, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that in terms of the sanctioned plan for the petitioner's property, the windows were permitted. He has drawn attention of the Court to the sanction plan (Annexure-P7 to the writ petition).

9.

In my considered view, the aforesaid sanctioned plan does not, in any manner, show that the petitioner was permitted to have openings towards the property of respondent no.2.

10.

The ATMCD in its order dated 15th October, 2025 has clearly said that in terms of Unified Building Byelaws, 1983 any window/opening towards another property is not permitted. It has further been observed that the petitioner failed to submit any document, including the sanctioned plan to show that he is authorized to have the window/opening towards the property of respondent no.2.

11.

In light of the aforesaid findings, no grounds for interference are made out.

12.

Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. AMIT BANSAL, J MAY 7, 2026 Rzu The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.