Delhi High Court
Taufeeque Ahmad vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & Ors on 25 September, 2025
$~95
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 25th September, 2025
+ W.P.(C) 14893/2025 & CM APPL. 61243/2025
TAUFEEQUE AHMAD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shekhar Dasi, Md. Talha, Mr.
Ayush Dassi, Mr. Divyansh Malhotra,
Advocates (M:98711655327)
versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
.....Respondents
Through: Ms. Harita Mehta, Advocate for MCD
(M:9999986600)
Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, Sr. Panel
Counsel for R-3 (M:9717736267)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to
respondent no. 1, i.e., Municipal Corporation of Delhi ("MCD") to not take
any further demolition action against the property of the petitioner, i.e.,
property bearing No. A-16, part of Khasra No. 743/556/330, Shaheen Bagh,
New Delhi-110025, till the time, the Appellate Tribunal MCD ("ATMCD")
is reconstituted, and the appeals of the petitioner bearing Nos. 42/2025 and
43/2025, before the ATMCD, are heard by the ATMCD.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this
Court to the orders dated 23rd January, 2025, 21st February, 2025 and 02nd
May, 2025, passed by the ATMCD, to submit that the interim application for
stay, filed by the petitioner, before the ATMCD, could not be taken up, as
the MCD filed its reply only on 02nd May, 2025 and the appeals were then
listed for 26th September, 2025 before the ATMCD.
3. It is submitted that currently, there is no Presiding Officer in the
ATMCD. Thus, the present writ petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not
carrying out any further construction and shall not carry out any further
construction in the property in question, during the pendency of the appeal
before the ATMCD.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1, i.e., MCD, appearing on
advance notice, submits that the action against the property in question has
already been taken on various dates viz. 11th December, 2024, 12th March,
2025, 29th May, 2025 and 21st August, 2025.
6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates that he shall
not undertake any further construction in the property in question.
7. Noting the aforesaid submissions made before this Court, the
petitioner is directed not to undertake any unauthorized construction in the
property in question.
8. Status quo with respect to the property in question shall be maintained
by the petitioner.
9. In view of the aforesaid, interim protection is granted to the petitioner,
and the MCD is directed not to take any further action against the property
of the petitioner, till petitioner's interim application for stay, pending before
the ATMCD, is heard by the ATMCD.
10. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the
action that has been taken against the property of the petitioner, was on
account of a writ petition, being W.P.(C) 16653/2024, filed by one Ms.
Prabha, daughter of Mr. Ashok Narayan, resident of House No. 316, Garhi
Mendu, Maujpur, Delhi-110053, who is the respondent no. 2 herein.
11. He draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 03 rd December,
2024 passed by this Court in aforesaid petition being W.P.(C) 16653/2024,
titled as "Prabha Versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.", to submit
that the said petition was filed by Ms. Prabha and that the action against the
property of the petitioner was taken on the basis of the aforesaid order, in
which, the petitioner was not made a party. The order dated 03rd December,
2024, passed in W.P.(C) 16653/2024, titled as "Prabha Versus Municipal
Corporation of Delhi & Ors.", is reproduced as under:
"1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution, complaining of alleged illegal construction in
property No. A-16, Thokar No.6, Abul Fazal Enclave Part-2,
Shaheen Bagh, adjoining Araabaik Restaurant, Khasra No. 353,
366, 367, 368 situated at Shaheen Bagh Okhla New Delhi-110025
["subject property"].
2. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ["MCD"],
who appears on advance instructions, states that the subject property
has been inspected on multiple occasions, and unauthorised
construction has been found. As far as the basement to the second
floor of the subject property are concerned. MCD has issued a show
cause notice on 08.10.2024 and has passed a demolition order on
18.10.2024. On 02.12.2024, a show cause notice has also been issued
for the third, fourth and fifth floors of the subject property. He states
that the second show cause notice will be adjudicated upon
consideration of the reply thereto, if any. Further consequential action
in terms of the orders passed will be taken expeditiously in
accordance with law, after lifting of the Graded Response Action
Plan-IV restrictions, and subject to availability of police force.
3. In view of the aforesaid statement on behalf of learned counsel for
the MCD, Mr. Pankaj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, does
not seek any further orders in this writ petition, which stands disposed
of, alongwith the pending application.
4. The rights and contentions of the owners/occupants of the subject
property are expressly reserved. MCD is directed to take action
strictly in accordance with law, and after complying with all statutory
formalities, and bearing in mind the Supreme Court judgment dated
13.11.2024 in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of
structures [W.P. (C) 295/2022 and connected matters]."
(Emphasis Supplied)
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to
the Annexure-2, attached with the present petition, which is the copy of the
writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) 16653/2024, filed by the said Ms. Prabha, against
the petitioner, wherein, in Paras 2 and 3, following submissions have been
made:
"xxx xxx xxx
2. That the petitioner is owner of the 80 sq yd of the PROPERTY
BEARING NO. A-16, THOKAR No. 6, ABUL FAZAL ENCLAVE
PART-2 SHAHEEN BAGH ADJOINING ARAABAIK
RESTAURANT, KHASRA NO. 353, 366, 367, 368 SITUATED at
SHAHEEN BAGH OKHLA NEW DELHI-110025 out of 200 sq yds
and the respondent no. 3 many times requested to petitioner that the
respondent wants to purchase the petitioner's plot but the petitioner
always denied the same .copy of the property documents is annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE-B.
3. That thereafter on dated 30.09.2024 , when the petitioner visited
at her plot she came to know that the construction was going on her
plot then the petitioner inquired to worker about who constructed
the plot then the worker have said that the builder namely wajid
khan constructing the plot thereafter petitioner called the police
immediately but the police did not come, thereafter petitioner finally
visited to the police station shaheen bagh but the police official did
not take any legal action against the respondent no. 3/ builder.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasis Supplied)
13. By referring to the annexed copy of the aforesaid writ petition, it is
submitted that though the said Ms. Prabha, had alleged that she was the
owner of the afore-noted property, however, no suit for possession or any
other proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner herein.
14. He further submits that the said Ms. Prabha has been filing other writ
petitions on similar grounds, through the same lawyer, against other parties
as well, in which, she alleges that she is the owner of the property in
question.
15. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the copy of the writ petition
being W.P. (C)15906/2024, titled as "Ms. Prabha Versus Municipal
Corporation of Delhi and Ors.", attached as Annexure-13 with the present
writ, wherein, submissions have been made on behalf of Ms. Prabha, in the
following manner:
"xxx xxx xxx
2. That the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser of 100 Sq. Yds. Vacant
Plot and has been illegally encroached by the respondent No.4 and
constructing over it without obtaining any site plan from the
concerned authority i.e. MCD and building bye-laws. It is pertinent
to mention here that the petitioner is the lawful owner having the
100 Sq. Yds. portion of the said property which has been merged and
illegally encroached by the respondent No.4. When the petitioner
objected and made a complaint against the said encroachment and
illegal construction, the respondent No. 4 given the threats and
criminal intimidation to the petitioner. The document of the
ownership of the petitioner in respect of the said property are
enclosed herewith as ANNEXURE A (COLLY).
3. That the respondent No.4 is carrying out the unauthorized and
illegal construction in the said Property Measuring 248 Sq. Yds. of
Property/ Plot Bearing No. E-38, Khasra No. 748, Kanchankunj,
Madanpur Khadar, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076 out of which
the 100 Sq. Yds. portion of the property grabbed and illegally
encroached by the respondent No.4 from the petitioner. The
petitioner made the complaint to the nearby police station and other
concerned authorities; however, the officials of the concerned
authorities did not take any action against the respondent No.4. The
copy of the complaints dated 14.10.2024 along with acknowledgments
are enclosed as ANNEXURE B (COLLY).
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasis Supplied)
16. Perusal of the aforesaid clearly shows that similar averments have
been made by the said Ms. Prabha that she is the owner of some other
property in the aforesaid writ petition, also.
17. Attention of this Court has been drawn to a third writ petition being
W.P.(C) 1846/2025, which is again titled as, "Prabha Versus Municipal
Corporation of Delhi & Ors.", wherein, the following averments have been
made:
"xxx xxx xxx
2. That the petitioner is owner of the 75 sq yd of the PROPERTY
BEARING NO. 180-A KHASRA NO. 180 & 181 GALI NO. 4,
ZAKIR NAGAR, JAMIA NAGAR, OKHLA NEW DELHI 110025
out of 200 sqr yds and the respondent no. 3 many times requested to
petitioner that the respondent wants to purchase the petitioner's plot
but the petitioner always denied the same. Copy of the property
documents is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE-B.
3. That thereafter on last week of November 2024, petitioner came to
know that the respondent no. 3 have dug a pit in the ground for the
purpose of making basement, multi story commercial building up to
six floors.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasis Supplied)
18. Perusal of the aforesaid three writ petitions, filed on behalf of Ms.
Prabha, shows that similar averments have been made by the said Ms.
Prabha, with respect to different properties, wherein, she has filed petitions
for unauthorized construction against the said different properties on the
ground that she is the owner of the said properties.
19. This Court takes note of the submissions made by learned counsel for
the petitioner that no suit for possession or any other proceeding has been
filed by the said Ms. Prabha against the petitioner, or against any third party,
despite making averments that she is the owner of the said respective
properties.
20. Learned counsel for the petitioner also draws the attention of this
Court to the Aadhaar Card of the said Ms. Prabha, which is reproduced as
under:
21. He further draws the attention of this Court to the validity check result
of the said Aadhaar Card, which is reproduced as under:
22. He submits that as per the validity check of Ms. Prabha's Adhaar
Card, the age band is 20 to 30 years, whereas, as per the affidavit filed by
the said Ms. Prabha in W.P.(C) 16653/2024, which is the petition against the
petitioner herein, the said Ms. Prabha has given her age as about 40 years.
The affidavit filed by Ms. Prabha in W.P.(C) 16653/2024, is reproduced as
under:
23. This Court also takes note of the fact that a fresh contempt petition
dated 02nd August, 2025, has also been served upon the petitioner. The index
of the said contempt petition is reproduced as under:
24. Considering the aforesaid, it seems that Ms. Prabha is only a stooge
for various persons, who file writ petitions against persons who are raising
construction, to extort money from them and to blackmail them.
25. This Court takes note of this very serious state of affairs.
26. Accordingly, it is directed that the Deputy Commissioner of Police
("DCP"), Sarita Vihar, with aid of the Station House Officer ("SHO"),
Police Station Shaheen Bagh, shall carry out an investigation into the
antecedents of the aforesaid Ms. Prabha.
27. Appropriate action shall be taken by the requisite authorities against
the said Ms. Prabha.
28. Considering the submissions made before this Court, the Registry of
this Court is directed that whenever, any future petition of any nature is filed
by Ms. Prabha, daughter of Mr. Ashok Narayan, resident of House No. 316,
Garhi Mendu, Maujpur, Delhi-110053, the order passed today shall be
attached with those petitioners, so that the Courts, where the subsequent
petitions are listed, are made aware of the order that has been passed today.
29. With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition, along with the
pending application, is accordingly disposed of.
30. A copy of this order shall be sent to the DCP, Sarita Vihar and SHO,
Police Station-Shaheen Bagh, for compliance.
MINI PUSHKARNA, J
SEPTEMBER 25, 2025/au
