Final Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Civ Suit 354/26
CNR No. DLNE03-000614-2026
IRFAN AHMED
Vs.
ASGAR
17.08.2026
Present: Sh. Moin Akhtar, Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
1. The case of plaintiff as averred in the plaint is that the
plaintiffs are resident of the addresses given in memo of parties.
It is further stated that Defendant No.1 was carrying out illegal
and unauthorized construction at property bearing No. N-69,
11/5, near Vishwa Bharti Public School, Gali No.16, Brahmpuri,
Delhi-110053 (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”),
without obtaining any sanctioned building plan or complying
with the norms prescribed by Defendant No.2/MCD. It is further
stated that the construction was being carried out without
providing the mandatory parking space at the ground floor and
by using sub-standard construction material. It is further stated
that the foundation of the suit property was weak and incapable
of supporting the superstructure, resulting in damage to adjoining
houses and creating apprehension of danger to the residents of
the locality. It is further stated that a heavy vehicle carrying
construction material had earlier toppled near Vishwa Bharti
Public School, resulting in construction material falling on two
parked scooties and creating a potential danger to children and
other persons present nearby. It is further stated that bricks from
adjoining houses had started falling due to the ongoing
Civ Suit 354/26
	CNR No. DLNE03-000614-2026
	IRFAN AHMED Vs. ASGAR
	PAGE No. 1 of 4
-- 1 of 4 --
construction. It is further stated that heavy vehicles carrying
construction material frequently visited the locality at odd hours,
causing inconvenience to the residents and resulting in potholes
in the street. When the plaintiffs and other residents objected to
the construction, Defendant No.1 threatened them with dire
consequences and claimed to have influence over the authorities.
It is further stated that the plaintiffs thereafter lodged a complaint
with D-2/MCD on 20.04.2026 against the unauthorized
construction. Upon repeated follow-ups, the plaintiffs were
provided the contact details of the concerned JE and were
assured that appropriate action would be taken. Subsequently, a
“Work Stop Notice” was issued and pasted at the suit property. It
is further stated that Defendant No.1 and his associates
subsequently tore down the said Work Stop Notice and resumed
the construction. It is further stated that the plaintiffs contacted
the concerned JE and also sought police assistance through the
emergency number, but no effective assistance was provided. It is
further stated that despite repeated complaints, including the
complaint dated 19.06.2026, D-2 failed to take effective action
against the unauthorized construction.
2. Submissions heard. File perused.
3. In the judgment titled as Rajinder Motwani vs. MCD RSA
No.243/17 dated 16.10.2017, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in
para no. 8 held as under :
“
an illegal construction in itself does not give any
Civ Suit 354/26
	CNR No. DLNE03-000614-2026
	IRFAN AHMED Vs. ASGAR
	PAGE No. 2 of 4
-- 2 of 4 --
legal right to a neighbour. An illegal construction
always no doubt gives locus standi to the local
municipal authorities to seek removal of the illegal
construction, but a right of a neighbor only arises if
the legal rights of light and air or any other legal
right is affected by virtue of the illegal construction
of the neighbor. Legal right to light and air is only in
terms of section 15 of the Easement Act, 1882 which
requires a cause of action to be laid out and proved
that right to light and air has been enjoyed for 20
years and only on completion of 20 years there is
right to acquisition by prescription in the
easementary rights. It is relevant to note that even
after acquisition of easemenatry rights of
prescription, yet, right to injunction for a neighbor is
not absolute and is covered by Section 33 of the
Easement Act which requires that disturbance to the
easementary rights must actually cause substantial
damage to a neighbor and the infraction materially
diminishes the value of the dominant heritage with
the fact that there is material interference in the
physical comfort of the neighbor of living in his own
house or prevents the neighbor from carrying on his
accustomed business in the dominant heritage/his
own house. All these are factual aspects and
admittedly there is no cause of action which is laid
out in the plaint in terms of section 15 and 33 of the
Easement Act that right to easement of the
appellants/plaintiffs has become absolute as it has
been enjoyed for 20 years and that in fact after rights
to easement are acquired by prescription there is also
a substantial damage to the appellants/plaintiffs or
there is material interference in the physical comfort
of the appellants/plaintiffs or the appellants/plaintiffs
being prevented from carrying on his accustomed
business in their own dominant heritage/own
property.”
4. Thus, from the above judgment passed by the Hon'ble
Delhi High Court, it is clear that merely by virtue of being
neighbour or resident of locality, a person does not become
entitled to file a suit to restrain other from carrying illegal
construction. In order to have locus, the party filing the suit must
show that by virtue of such construction his legal right to air or
water or light has been affected or such construction is going to
be detrimental to his own property or his safety. It is also
Civ Suit 354/26
	CNR No. DLNE03-000614-2026
	IRFAN AHMED Vs. ASGAR
	PAGE No. 3 of 4
-- 3 of 4 --
observed that plaintiff nos. 2 & 3 are not adjacent resident to suit
property and they are also not having their property adjacent to
suit property but they have been impleaded as plaintiff without
having locus standi. The adjournment was also granted to the
plaintiffs but plaintiffs not moved any application regarding the
plaintiff nos. 2 & 3 but plaintiff nos. 2 & 3 continued to harp
upon the residential address of plaintiff no. 1 without having their
own locus standi to file the present suit. This court is of
concerned opinion that when plaintiff nos. 2 & 3 do not have
locus standi to file the present suit, then they also cannot be
allowed to continue with present suit. Since, no such right is
alleged to be infringed, so plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the
present suit against the construction raised by defendant no. 1.
The defendant no. 2/MCD is at liberty to proceed as per law. The
present plaint is rejected u/o 7 Rule 11(a) CPC.
5. File after due compliance be consigned to Record Room.
Decree sheet be prepared.
AJAY KUMAR MALIK
JSCC/ASCJ/G.JUDGE (N/E)
17.08.2026
Civ Suit 354/26
	CNR No. DLNE03-000614-2026
	IRFAN AHMED Vs. ASGAR
	PAGE No. 4 of 4
-- 4 of 4 --