Order 1

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: A.No. 356/26
29.04.2026
Fresh appeal filed. It be checked and registered.
Present : 	Sh. Rishu Singh, Ms. Heena Dawar and Sh. Mayank
Jain, Ld counsels for the appellant.
Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, Ld counsel for the
respondent/caveator along with Sh. Ravi Kumar, AE(B)
and Sh. Sunny Chaudhary, EE(B), West Zone, MCD.
Ld. counsel for the respondent appears on advance
notice of caveat.
The record has been produced. It be deposited with
Registry.
The appellant has challenged the sealing order dated
12.03.2026 and the two orders dated 09.04.2026 and
10.04.2026 passed under Section 435 of DMC Act. The
orders passed under Section 435 DMC Act are not
appealable before this Tribunal and in these facts, the
appeal is confined only to a challenge of the sealing order
dated 12.03.2026.
Ld. counsel for the appellant submits that he was under
the impression that the demolition orders are that of
09.04.2026 and 10.04.2026 and he is not aware about
any other demolition order, therefore, the present appeal
is filed against the said orders considering the same as
demolition orders inadvertently.
….contd.2
-- 1 of 6 --
: 2 :
Ld counsel for the appellant seeks liberty of this Tribunal
to rectify the said defect, however, he prays for interim
protection against this property till he receives the actual
demolition order from the respondent as he prayed in his
application under Order XII rule 8 CPC.
Arguments heard on the interim application.
This is an appeal challenging the sealing order dated
12.03.2026 passed in respect of premises bearing no. A-
391, 392, 393, JJ Colony, Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, New
Delhi. The appellant has filed this appeal acting as ‘Next
friend’ of the owner/occupier of these properties. As per
appeal, the owner/occupier of these properties was taken
in Judicial custody on 05.03.2026 in FIR no. 122/26, PS
Uttam Nagar and since then, he is in custody. The
respondent being well aware of this fact, had taken a pre-
planned unilateral action by sealing the properties. The
appellant was incapable to respond the show cause
notices and the sealing order and there was no occasion
to reply to the show cause notice dated 09.03.2026
issued under Section 345-A of the DMC Act. The sealing
order itself is illegal and show cause notice was never
served upon the appellant and therefore, the impugned
sealing order should be stayed and as an interim relief, it
has been prayed that that no demolition action should be
…contd.3
-- 2 of 6 --
: 3 :
taken against the properties. It was argued that the
appellant has filed this appeal as a ‘Next Friend’ of the
owner/occupier as she is not aware as to whether her
husband Mohd. Sameer is the owner of the properties or
whether her father Ismail is the owner of the properties.
It was argued that the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India IN RE… directions in the matter of
demolition of structures (2025) 5 Supreme Court Cases 1
were violated and therefore, there is prima facie case in
favour of the appellant and no coercive action should be
taken against the properties.
Ld. counsel for the respondent on the other hand has
argued that all the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India passed in this case were duly followed. This appeal
otherwise is not maintainable since no court has
appointed the appellant as ‘Next Friend’ of her husband
or of her father and the appellant has no locus to file this
appeal. It was argued that the Hon’ble High Court vide
order dated 13.04.2026 granted 2 weeks time to the
appellant to file this appeal and the appellant had
sufficient time since then till 28.04.2026 when this appeal
was filed, to verify as to who is the owner of the
properties and now by filing this appeal on the last date of
the time granted by the Hon’ble High Court, the appellant
…contd.4
-- 3 of 6 --
: 4 :
is trying to take benefit of her own mistake of not
approaching this Tribunal in time. It was further argued
that the show cause notice and sealing order were duly
served at the properties and therefore, there is no case
made out in favour of the appellant/her husband/her
father. It was also argued that the subject properties are
in JJ Colony and have a standard building plan for each
plot measuring 25 sq. yards and the appellant has raised
construction contrary to the Standard building plan.
I have perused the record.
The show cause notice under Section 345-A of the DMC
Act dated 09.03.2026 was served by way of affixation at
the subject properties on 09.03.2026 itself. 	The
photographs of this affixation is available on record. The
same was also sent through speed post on 10.03.2026
and returned unserved with the report ‘no such person at
this address’. Thereafter, the respondent passed the
sealing order dated 12.03.2026 which was also served on
12.03.2026 and these properties which were under
construction were sealed on 12.03.2026 itself. Since, the
properties were found locked, the respondent did its best
by sending the show cause notice and the sealing order
by post as well as same was served through pasting.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the judgments of
…contd.5
-- 4 of 6 --
: 5 :
Paramjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs. MCD 1994 (31) DRJ 588,
Narender Prasad Dubey Vs. UOI 1999 (51) DRJ 152 and
in the case of Usha Devi Sharma vs. MCD & Ors. AIR
Online 2020 Delhi 954 has held that the service through
pasting is proper service, if no one is found or could not
be found at the property. It was held that if at a given
time, the owner is not available then notice can be served
by pasting the same. In the present case, the notice was
duly served through pasting.
Further, I find merits in the contentions of ld counsel for
the respondent that the appellant had no locus to file this
appeal. 	She states to be ‘Next Friend’ of the
owner/occupier of this property, but herself is not aware
as to who is owner/occupier. Not even a single document
has been filed on record to show the ownership or the
occupation of the appellant or her husband or her father
to the subject properties. In the absence of any document
on record to show that how the appellant has locus to file
this appeal, it cannot be said that she is a person
aggrieved by the impugned order as contemplated under
Section 347-B of the DMC Act.
In these facts, there is no prima facie case in favour of
the appellant more so when the demolition order has not
…contd.6
-- 5 of 6 --
: 6 :
been challenged. The appellant has not filed any
document to show that the construction is as per the
standard building plan for JJ Colony. The appellant has
failed to establish her locus and even the balance of
convenience does not lie in favour of the appellant.
The interim application is dismissed.
Put up for arguments on the appeal on 11.06.2026.
Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to have any
expression or opinion on the merit of this case.
(AMIT KUMAR)
Addl. District & Sessions Judge
P.O.: Appellate Tribunal, MCD
29.04.2026
-- 6 of 6 --