Dr. Ahmed Kamaal v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ORS.
$~4, 5, 7 and 8 *
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
4.
+ W.P.(C) 6729/2026 DR. AHMED KAMAAL .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Amiet Andlay, Mr. Arun K.
Sharma and Mr. Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocates.
versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr. Kapil Dutta, Ms. Vidhi Jain and Mr. Vansh Luthra, Advocates for MCD.
5.
+ W.P.(C) 6749/2026 DR AHMED KAMAAL .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Amiet Andlay, Mr. Arun K.
Sharma and Mr. Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocates.
versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr. Kapil Dutta, Ms. Vidhi Jain and Mr. Vansh Luthra, Advocates for MCD.
versus 7.
+ W.P.(C) 6710/2026 DR AHMED KAMAAL .....Petitioner The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Through:
Mr. Amiet Andlay, Mr. Arun K.
Sharma and Mr. Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocates.
versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr. Kapil Dutta, Ms. Vidhi Jain and Mr. Vansh Luthra, Advocates for MCD.
8.
+ W.P.(C) 6713/2026 DR AHMED KAMAAL .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Amiet Andlay, Mr. Arun K.
Sharma and Mr. Mohd. Anis Ur Rehman, Advocates.
versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
.....Respondents Through:
Mr. Kapil Dutta, Ms. Vidhi Jain and Mr. Vansh Luthra, Advocates for MCD.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
O R D E R
% 29.05.2026 The present matter has been taken up today, i.e., 29th May, 2026 as 28th May, 2026 was declared a holiday.
1.
Mr. Amiet Andlay, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that respondents no.2 and 3 have been served by the petitioner through e-mail, in terms of the order passed this Court on 18th May, 2026. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
1.1 Copy of the e-mail has been handed over in Court and the same is taken on record.
2.
None appears on behalf of the respondents no.2 and 3 despite service. 3.
The present writ petitions have been filed challenging the common impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal MCD (ATMCD) on 29th April, 2026.
4.
In terms of the said order, a total of six appeals, four filed by the petitioner and two filed by respondents no.2 and 3, have been dismissed. The aforesaid appeals were filed against the demolition/sealing orders. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the impugned order are set out below: 5.
The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the directions passed in paragraph 12 of the impugned order, which is 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.
6.
Mr. Andlay submits that liberty has wrongfully been given by ATMCD to respondents no.2 and 3 to get the property temporarily de-sealed to carry out demolition.
7.
Mr. Andlay submits that the property belongs to the petitioner and not respondents no.2 and 3.
8.
Mr. Kapil Dutta, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/MCD questions the maintainability of the present appeal in view of the statutory remedy of appeal before the District Judge.
9.
Mr. Andlay, on instructions, waives of the right to file the appeal before the District Judge and submits that the present writ petition may be decided by this Court.
10.
It has been noted in paragraph 6 of the impugned order that there is a title dispute between the petitioner and respondents no.2 and 3 which is pending before the Civil Court. The relevant extract from the impugned order is 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.
11.
In view of the ongoing title dispute between the petitioner and respondents no.2 and 3, neither this Court nor respondent/MCD can go into the aspect whether the petitioner is the owner or in possession of the subject property.
12.
Having heard the counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that instead of granting liberty either to the petitioner or the respondents no.2 and 3 to demolish the unauthorized construction, the MCD itself should carry out the demolition of the unauthorized construction pursuant to the demolition orders dated 7th October, 2016 and 2nd December, 2017. 13.
In view thereof, the present writ petitions stand disposed of and the impugned order stands modified to the aforesaid extent. 14.
All pending applications stand disposed of.
AMIT BANSAL, J MAY 29, 2026 Vivek/- The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.