Order 2

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: A.No. 348/26
10.06.2026
Present : 	Sh. V.K. Mantoo, Ld counsel for the appellant.
Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, Ld counsel for the respondent along
with Mohd. Asif, AE(B),
Status report is filed by the MCD, copy supplied.
The record has been produced. It be deposited with
Registry. It can be inspected by the counsel for the
appellant.
Arguments heard on the interim application.
The appellant has challenged the demolition order dated
30.12.2025 passed in respect of unauthorized
construction in the shape excess coverage and
deviations from sanctioned building plan dated
11.08.2025 on stilt to third floor of property no. 8707/3
and 8704/14, Roshnara Mansion, Roshnara Road, Delhi-
07. It was argued for the appellant that he has already
applied for regularization of existing construction which is
permitted under clause 2.8 of UBB-2016 and till the
regularization application is pending, the impugned
demolition order should be stayed.
Ld counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the
judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India passed in
Civil appeal no. 4088 of 2008 dated 24.02.2016 titild as
Indore Municipal Corporation Vs. Harish Tolani.
Ld counsel for the respondent on the other hand has
argued that unauthorized construction in the shape of
excess coverage and deviations from sanctioned building
plan from stilt to first floor was booked on 24.10.2025 and
a show cause notice u/s 344-(1) read with 343 DMC Act
-- 1 of 3 --
was served upon the appellant who replied the same on
06.11.2025 stating that he has demolished the extra
deviations and coverage. Personall hearing was given to
him and the proceedings were closed. The JE(B)
thereafter inspected the property and took photographs
and found that the appellant has raised construction upto
third floor without demolishing the deviations and excess
coverage. Thereafter the impugned demolition order was
passed. The appellant did not stop unauthorized
construction despite notice being issued under sedction
344 (1) DMC act. It was also argued that sanctioned
building plan was obtained under Saral Scheme by
concealing the fact that the subject property is in special
area and without seeking permission from DUAIC. Notice
u/s 338 has already being issued and the appellant has
joined those proceedings and therefore the interim
applicdation should be dismissed.
I haveperused the record. The sanctioned building plan
was obtained under Saral Scheme without disclosing that
the property is in special area and without obtaining the
prior permission from DUAIC. The appellant also
concealed these facts in this appeal. Further, when the
show cause notice was served, the construction was
raised only upto first floor but the appellant did not stop
the construction and continued and raised the building
upto third floor. The appellant falsely claimed in his reply
to the show cause notice that he has demolished the
deviation and excess coverage. Instead he continued
with unauthorized construction. The appellant has not
approached the court with clean hands and as such does
not has a prima-facie case in his favour. If he has
-- 2 of 3 --
demolished the deviation and excess coverage, there
was no need for him to apply for regularization as the
sanctioned building plan has not yet been revoked. This
clearly shows that deviations and excess coverage still
exists for which regularization has been sought. The
interim application therefore is dismissed.
Nothing said hereinabove shall tantamount to have any
expression on the merits of the case.
Put up arguments on appeal on 14.10.2026.
(AMIT KUMAR)
Addl. District & Sessions Judge
P.O.: Appellate Tribunal, MCD
10.06.2026
-- 3 of 3 --