Delhi High Court
Moinuddin vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi And Ors on 19 November, 2025
$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19.11.2025
+ W.P.(C) 17593/2025 & CM APPL. 72680/2025
MOINUDDIN .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Suhail Khanna, Ms. Priya Nagar,
Ms. Nibha Kumari and Mr. Abhishek
Nagar, Advs.
Mob: 8800420426
Email: [email protected]
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Rohit Kathuria, Mr. Dhruv
Varma and Mr. Harshit Sharma,
Advocates for MCD
Mob: 9717948948 & 8800973281
Email: [email protected]
Mr. Sanjay Ghose, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Imran Ahmad and Mr. Mohit Garg,
Advs. for R-2 to 6
Mob: 9350460168
Email: [email protected]
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):
1. The present writ petition has been filed in respect of unauthorized
construction in the property bearing No. 1248, Ganj Meer Khan, Turkman
Gate, Delhi-110006.
2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsels appearing for the
respondents.
3. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2
to 6, submits that the petitioner is in the habit of initiating various litigations.
He has handed over to this Court copy of orders passed in a Civil Suit filed
by the petitioner herein being CS SCJ No. 2177/24, tilted as "Mohd.
Moinuddin Versus MCD & Ors." The order dated 01st July, 2025, passed in
the said Civil Suit, which learned Senior Counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 6
relies upon, is reproduced as under:
"
4. By referring to the aforesaid order, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for respondent nos. 2 to 6 submits that the said suit ultimately culminated in
a settlement, wherein, Rs. 15,50,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Fifty
Thousand) was paid to the petitioner herein.
5. This Court also takes note of the order dated 03rd December, 2024,
passed in CS SCJ No. 2149/2024, titled as "Mohd. Moinuddin Versus MCD
& Ors.", wherein, the stand of the MCD has been recorded that the property
of the petitioner herein was inspected and it was found that there is no
Sanctioned Building Plan in respect of the property of the petitioner herein.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 6 also
draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 03 rd July, 2025 passed in
the afore-noted suit being CS SCJ No. 2149/2024 filed by the petitioner
herein against the same property for the same cause of action and raising the
same issue of unauthorized construction. The said suit of the petitioner was
dismissed vide the said order dated 03rd July, 2025.
7. Thus, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 6
submits that the present writ petition would not be maintainable on the same
cause of action. He further submits that the MCD has already taken
cognizance of the unauthorized construction existing in the property in
question.
8. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for respondent-MCD submits
that MCD has already taken cognizance of unauthorized construction in the
property in question. He has handed over certain documents with regard to
the action taken by the MCD against the unauthorized construction, which
are taken on record.
9. Perusal of the documents handed over by learned counsel appearing
for MCD shows that a Demolition Order was passed on 09th July, 2025,
pursuant to which, part action has also taken by the MCD on 26th September,
2025.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that
unauthorized construction is still being carried out by the respondent nos. 2
to 6.
11. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court
notes that a similar suit with a similar prayer with regard to the property in
question was filed by the petitioner herein being CS SCJ 2149/2024, before
the Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
12. It is to be noted that vide order dated 03rd July, 2025, the said suit was
dismissed, by noting the following:
"xxx xxx xxx
15. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff has
most of his grievance against the defendant no.2 and 3 for not taking
proper precautions and safeguards while carrying out the
construction at the suit property. The plaintiff has nowhere stated in
his plaint that his personal rights are being affected or that he has
not been able to enjoy his own property because of the alleged
unauthorized construction by defendant no.2 and 3. It is not the case
of the plaintiff that his property is adjacent to the property of
defendant no.2 and 3 or that his property may get damaged due to
the alleged unauthorized construction. Even in the site plan filed by
the plaintiff, his property is situated across the street where the
alleged construction is being carried out. From the facts of the case,
it is apparent that the plaintiff has no personal interest in the suit
property. Plaintiff has not made any averment in the plaint with
regard to any infringement of his personal rights by the defendant
no. 2 and 3. The plaintiff has not mentioned that his own property or
any of his legal right is going to be adversely affected by the alleged
illegal construction raised by the defendant no.2 and 3 or that the
said construction is detrimental to his own property.
xxx xxx xxx
17. Since the plaintiff has no personal interest or right in the suit
property, the present suit is barred under the provisions of Section
41 (j) of the Specific Relief Act. More over, the plaintiff has no
cause of action to file the present suit as no right of his has been
infringed due to alleged unauthorized construction. The present suit
has been filed without any locus. A plaint without a cause of action
and without locus is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 (a)
CPC.
xxx xxx xxx
19. Thus, in light of the aforementioned judgment passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, 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/her legal right to air or
water or light bas been affected or such construction is going to be
detrimental to his/her own property or his/her safety. Since, no such
right is alleged to be infringed, accordingly, the application under
Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is allowed and the present plaint is rejected
under Order 7 Rule 11 (a) & (d) of CPC.
20. It is needless to mention that plaint has been rejected due to the
lack of cause of action and locus standi of the plaintiff to institute
the present suit. It will not prevent the concerned Government
Authorities from their obligations to proceed as per law for taking
appropriate action against any unauthorized construction taking
place within their jurisdiction.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasis Supplied)
13. Perusal of the aforesaid order clearly shows that the suit filed by the
petitioner herein with regard to the property in question already stands
dismissed by the learned Trial Court by holding that the petitioner herein,
was not entitled to file a suit, when the petitioner was not personally affected
by such construction.
14. Accordingly, once the suit with the same cause of action has already
been dismissed by the Trial Court, there is no occasion for this Court to
entertain a similar writ petition, having similar prayer, on the same cause of
action.
15. This Court further takes note of the submissions made by learned
counsel appearing for the MCD that unauthorized construction existing in
the property in question has already been booked and that part action has
also been taken pursuant thereto.
16. Accordingly, the MCD is held bound to take requisite action against
the unauthorized construction existing in the property in question.
17. Further, in case of any ongoing unauthorized construction, the same
shall be stopped forthwith by the concerned officials of the MCD, with the
assistance of the local police.
18. During the course of hearing, it has also come to the fore that the
property of the petitioner has also been constructed without a Sanctioned
Building Plan and that the petitioner herein is running a shop for sale of
spare motor parts from his residential premises.
19. Accordingly, the MCD is at liberty to take requisite action, after
following the due procedure of law, against the property of the petitioner
also.
20. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition, along with the
pending application, is accordingly disposed of.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
NOVEMBER 19, 2025
AK
