Recently, the Delhi High Court heard an intra-Court appeal challenging the demolition order for Signature View Apartments, a residential complex originally built for Commonwealth Games officials in 2010. The case arises amid concerns regarding the structural safety and integrity of the 336 flats spread across 12 towers, which over time have shown signs of deterioration, including cracks, corrosion, and falling plaster.
Brief Facts:
The Case arose when the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “DDA”) constructed 336 flats in 12 towers for Commonwealth Games players and officials in 2010. Post-games, these flats were sold to residents, including the Appellant. Over time, the flats showed structural deterioration such as cracks, corrosion, falling plaster, and ceilings, raising safety concerns.
Multiple reports by expert bodies, including the National Council for Cement and Building Materials (hereinafter referred to as “NCCBM”), IIT Delhi, and a government-appointed committee, found the buildings structurally unsafe, recommending evacuation and demolition. Pursuant to these reports, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “MCD”) issued an order under Sections 348 and 349 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act directing residents to vacate the buildings and demolish them to prevent danger.
The Appellant filed writ petitions challenging the demolition order and sought a stay, alleging a lack of proper structural audit and procedural lapses. These petitions, including a review petition, were dismissed by the Single Judge.
Contentions of Appellant:
The counsel for Appellant contended that the order of demolition should have been passed by the Commissioner himself and not his delegate, who lacked proper authority. The Appellant argued that the opinion for demolition under Section 348 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act was formed without a structural audit by MCD officials and was based on external expert reports, which is procedurally improper. The expert report relied upon, authored by a professor from IIT Delhi, was insufficient as it focused on concrete strength but ignored structural design and foundation stability. Reports by government committees were not independent structural audits but mere visual inspections relying on earlier expert findings. The Appellant emphasised that relevant aspects were ignored by the Single Judge and that the order lacked due process and proper scientific evaluation. A fresh structural audit should have been conducted before issuing any demolition order.
Contentions of Respondents:
The Respondents, the DDA and MCD, argued that the Single Judge correctly upheld the demolition orders based on expert reports. They maintained that the order was passed by a delegate with due authority. The opinion of external experts, including IIT Delhi professors and testing agencies, constituted relevant material for forming an opinion under Section 348 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. Judicial review in technical matters concerning experts’ opinions is very limited. Consequently, the demolition order was valid and the writ petitions had no merit.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the demolition order was validly passed by the authorised delegate, stating that “Merely because the Commissioner has not passed the order of removal of buildings; rather, it has been passed by his delegate, in our considered opinion, it will not make the order without jurisdiction or vitiated. It held that Section 348 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act grants discretion to the competent authority to act on forming an opinion that a building is ruinous or dangerous based on relevant material, including expert reports. The reports of domain experts, such as those from IIT Delhi, "cannot be questioned by the Court in judicial review of technical matters". The Court affirmed the Single Judge's refusal to interfere as proper, noting that the authority "is to be exercised by the competent authority based on relevant material, sufficiency of which cannot be gone into by the Courts".
Further, the Court confirmed that the reports and opinions from structural consultants and expert agencies were based on thorough structural assessments, reinforcing that "it cannot even remotely be said that the competent authority has not based his opinion on relevant material". The decision to demolish the buildings was supported by findings of serious structural deterioration and the Lieutenant Governor's endorsement, reflecting the wider public interest and safety considerations.
The Decision of the court:
The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the MCD’s demolition order under Sections 348 and 349 of the DMC Act. Finding no fault in relying on expert reports. It declined to question technical evaluations, noting the limited scope of judicial review, and dismissed the appeal with no costs.
Case Title: Man Mohan Singh Attri vs Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: LPA 533/2025, CM Appl. 51855/2025, CM Appl. 51856/2025, CM Appl. 51857/2025
Coram: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Hon'ble Mr Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
Counsel for the Appellant: Sachin Jain and Ajay Kr. Agarwal, Advocates
Counsel for the Respondents: Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate with Sanjay Katyal, Kritika Gupta, Vidur Mohan, Harshita Sukhija, Vidushi Singhania; Raghuvendra Upadhyay, Panel Counsel with Purnima Jain, Tanmay Jain; Puja S. Kalra, Senior Counsel with Virendra Singh; Amarendra Rakesh, President RWA and Gaurav Pandey, Secretary RWA
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
