Interim Order 5

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CS SCJ 1103/25
Amit Singhal Vs. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board
12.11.2025
Present: Sh Yogesh Aggarwal, ld counsel for
plaintiff/appellant.
Sh Munish Kumar, ld counsel for defendant
no.1, through VC.
Sh Naveen Malik, EE, DUSIB.
Sh Jitesh Narang and Sh Ajay Thadana, ld
counsel for defendant no.2.
Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of defendant
no.2. Taken on record.
An application for early hearing was made on
behalf of plaintiff stating that there is an imminent threat of
dispossession and demolition.
Heard.
In the interest of justice, the present application is
allowed. Let the matter be taken up at 02:30PM.
(Nitish Kumar Sharma)
JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/12.11.2025
At 02:30PM
Present: As Above.
Ld counsel for plaintiff has pressed his application
u/o XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking a direction to the effect
that defendants be restrained from entering into the suit property
and from dispossessing the plaintiff from suit property i.e.
Jhuggi No. 85, H-2, Jahangirpuri Delhi without due process of
law. It is stated that though this Court vide order dated
04.11.2025 has restrained defendant no.1 from taking any
-- 1 of 8 --
further demolition action, the defendant no.1 has begin
construction work in the property and bulldozers have been
brought at the property for digging soil. It is prayed that the
defendant no.1 be restrained from so doing as it would make the
suit infructuous.
It is stated that part property was demolished by
defendant no.1 without any notice been given in this regard and
such high-handedness at the hands of defendant no.1 is the
cause of this suit.
It is stated by Ld. Counsel for defendant number 2
that defendant no.2 has no role to play in the present case and is
not concerned with the alleged action taken by DUSIB. It is
stated an affidavit in this regard shall be filed on NDOH.
No reply has been filed, however the application is
contested vehemently by defendant no.1.
It is stated by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 that
the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable as a simplicitor suit
for injunction can not lie when there is no title to the property. It
is stated that the plaintiff has asserted that he is in settled
possession of the suit property but has not averred as to how he
came in possession of the suit property. It is stated that the suit
property was not being used for residence and plaintiff was
using the same unauthorisedly for commercial purposes. It is
argued that the present application may be dismissed as the
plaintiff has no prima facie case in his favour.
Heard.
Be put up for orders at 04:00 PM.
(Nitish Kumar Sharma)
JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/12.11.2025
-- 2 of 8 --
CS SCJ 1103/25
Amit Singhal Vs. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board
At 04:00 PM
Present: None
Order on application u/o 39 rule 1 and 2 CPC
1. The present suit has been filed by plaintiff stating that
the plaintiff has been in settled possession of the suit
property i.e. i.e. Jhuggi No. 85, H-2, Jahangirpuri Delhi
and the defendant no.1 has demolished the part of the
property without giving any notice to the plaintiff. It is
asserted that the defendant desires to raise/construct “ATAL
KITCHEN” at the site and have now placed bull-dozers to
dig the soil from the corners. It is stated that if the
defendant is not restrained from so doing, the case of the
plaintiff would become infructuous.
2. By way of the present suit, the plaintiff has sought
permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendant
to restrain them from dispossessing the plaintiff from the
suit property and further to restore the demolished portion
which has been demolished without due process of law.
3. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the part of the
suit property has been demolished by the defendant no.1 on
10.10.2025. It is admitted position that now only a small
portion remains and the same could not be demolished as it
might have resulted in damage to the other property.
-- 3 of 8 --
Further, it is admitted position of fact that no notice
was issued by the defendant no.1 before proceeding with
the demolition.
4. It is pertinent to mention that superior courts have
laid down from time to time that due process in State action
is a sine qua non and arbitrariness is an absolute anathema
thereof. In the spirit of leaving no person hapless against
arbitrary State action, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Re:
Directions in the matter of demolition of structures 2024
INSC 866, had passed directions for strict compliance
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India as well. They
may be noted as follows:
90. In order to allay the fears in the minds of the citizens
with regard to arbitrary exercise of power by the
officers/officials of the State, we find it necessary to issue
certain directions in exercise of our power under Article
142 of the Constitution. We are also of the view that even
after orders of demolition are passed, the affected party
needs to be given some time so as to challenge the order of
demolition before an appropriate forum. We are further of
the view that even in cases of persons who do not wish to
contest the demolition order, sufficient time needs to be
given to them to vacate and arrange their affairs. It is not
a happy sight to see women, children and aged persons
dragged to the streets overnight. Heavens would not fall
on the authorities if they hold their hands for some period.
91. At the outset, we clarify that these directions will not
be applicable if there is an unauthorized structure in any
public place such as road, street, footpath, abutting railway
line or any river body or water bodies and also to cases
where there is an order for demolition made by a Court of
law.
A. NOTICE
i. No demolition should be carried out without a prior
show cause notice returnable either in accordance with the
time provided by the local municipal laws or within 15
days’ time from the date of service of such notice,
whichever is later.
ii. The notice shall be served upon the owner/occupier by a
registered post A.D. Additionally, the notice shall also be
affixed conspicuously on the outer portion of the structure
in question.
iii. The time of 15 days, stated herein above, shall start
from the date of receipt of the said notice.
-- 4 of 8 --
iv. To prevent any allegation of backdating, we direct that
as soon as the show cause notice is duly served, intimation
thereof shall be sent to the office of Collector/District
Magistrate of the district digitally by email and an auto
generated reply acknowledging receipt of the mail should
also be issued from the office of the Collector/District
Magistrate. The Collector/DM shall designate a nodal
officer and also assign an email address and communicate
the same to all the municipal and other authorities in charge
of building regulations and demolition within one month
from today.
v. The notice shall contain the details regarding:
a. the nature of the unauthorized construction.
b. the details of the specific violation and the grounds of
demolition.
c. a list of documents that the noticee is required to furnish
along with his reply.
d. The notice should also specify the date on which the
personal hearing is fixed and the designated authority
before whom the hearing will take place;
vi. Every municipal/local authority shall assign a
designated digital portal, within 3 months from today
wherein details regarding service/pasting of the notice, the
reply, the show cause notice and the order passed thereon
would be available.
B. PERSONAL HEARING
i. The designated authority shall give an opportunity of
personal hearing to the person concerned.
ii. The minutes of such a hearing shall also be recorded.
C. FINAL ORDER
i. Upon hearing, the designated authority shall pass a final
order.
ii. The final order shall contain:
a. the contentions of the noticee, and if the designated
authority disagrees with the same, the reasons thereof;
b. as to whether the unauthorized construction is
compoundable, if it is not so, the reasons therefor;
c. if the designated authority finds that only part of the
construction is unauthorized/non-compoundable, then the
details thereof.
d. as to why the extreme step of demolition is the only
option available and other options like compounding and
demolishing only part of the property are not available.
5. It was argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 that
such directions were not applicable in the present case as
the plaintiff is an encroacher on a public space i.e. DUSIB
land.
-- 5 of 8 --
As per para 91 of the aforesaid judgment, the
directions would not be applicable if there is an
unauthorized structure in any public place such as road,
street, footpath, abutting railway line or any river body or
water bodies- which is not the case in the present dispute.
Admittedly, the property is not a road/street/footpath/river
body etc. It was argued that the property is a DUSIB land
and is a public place as the same has not been demarcated
for any other purpose. The said argument can not be
accepted as the judgment has very categorically excluded
the operation of guidelines on encroachment on public
spaces only.
6. Even otherwise, in
Babu Ram v State of Himachal
Pradesh Civil Appeal No. 13362/2024, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India has observed:
“17. However, it cannot be gainsaid that a
citizen has no right to encroach public land. If
indeed any citizen has encroached public land
and such encroachment is not otherwise
entitled to be regularised under any law, a
citizen has no right to sit on public land. In
such a case, the minimum safeguard that is
required of the State while ordering eviction of
an alleged unauthorized occupant is to follow
a fair procedure which would, inter alia,
include a proper exercise conducted for
demarcation of land in the presence of the
party who is likely to be effected if an order of
eviction is passed...”
7. Further, even in
Sultana Shaheen v Durga Shankar
Mishra & Anr Contempt Petition No. 335/2021, vide order
dated 08.05.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
-- 6 of 8 --
while ordering DDA to take action of demolition against
unauthorised construction has observed:
“We make it clear that when we say due
process of law before demolishing any
structure at least 15 days notice shall be
served upon the concerned persons.”
8. Admittedly, no notice was given by DUSIB in the
present case to the plaintiff before proceeding to demolish
the property. Thus, it has to be held that defendant no.1 has
not adopted due process of law and in such a scenario, the
defendant no.1 cannot claim that the suit is not
maintainable.
9. The plaintiff has shown his settled possession in the
suit property since long as the electricity connection in the
suit property has been existing since 2022, GST certificate
was obtained by plaintiff on the same address in the year
2017, MTNL connection existed in the name of father of
plaintiff at the said address in the year 1992. It cannot be,
thus, accepted that a suit for simpliciter injunction against
dispossession and restoration of demolished structure
would not be maintainable, at this stage. The plaintiff has
also sought restoration of demolished portion i.e. status ante
by way of mandatory injunction and in the considered
opinion of this court, the said relief is maintainable.
10. The other contention on behalf of defendant no.1 is
that the plaintiff was not using the property for residential
purpose and was unauthorisedly using it for commercial
purposes. Undisputedly, no notice for such misuse was
issued by defendant no.1. However, even such misuse is
-- 7 of 8 --
accepted, then also the action of defendant no.1 in
demolishing the property without giving any notice cannot
be justified. In essence, it is not as to “what” has been
demolished but “how” it is done, is of prominence. In due
process of law lies the heart of every State action and the
same is to be followed in all circumstances. The majesty of
the law or the State, lies not in its might, but in its method
and that method must be fair.
11. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion, and
considering that the plaintiff has been able to show a prima
facie case, and that balance of convenience lies in his
favour and that irreparable injury would be caused to the
plaintiff if the protection is not granted, the application of
the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rule 1 CPC is hereby
allowed and the defendants are hereby restrained from:
(a) dispossessing the plaintiff from the suit property i.e.
Jhuggi No. 85, H-2, Jahangirpuri Delhi without due process
of law,
(b) from demolishing the suit property any further and
(c) from raising any construction over the same for the
protection of the suit property;
till the disposal of the present case.
12. Let written statement be filed within stipulated period
of time with advance copy to the opposite party.
Be put up for further proceedings on 23.02.2026.
(Nitish Kumar Sharma)
JSCC/ASCJ/GUDN. JUDGE
North Rohini, Courts,Delhi/12.11.2025
-- 8 of 8 --