Appearance not given v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI ORS

W.P.(C) 1846/2025 Page 1 of 4 $~87 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1846/2025 PRABHA .....Petitioner Through: Appearance not given. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS......Respondents Through: Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Advocate for Respondent No.1/MCD. Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, SPC for Respondent No.2/SHO. Mr. Sumit Gehlot, Mr. Faraz Mirza, Mr. Raghav Chawla and Mr. T.S. Thakraon, Advocates for Respondent No.3. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH O R D E R % 12.03.2025 CM APPL. 15049/2025 1. This application is preferred on behalf of Respondent No. 3 seeking recall of order dated 14.02.2025 on the ground that the order has been obtained by the Petitioner on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and playing a fraud on the Court. 2. It is averred that Respondent No. 3 is residing in property bearing No. 180-A, Khasra No. 275/178, Gali No. 4, Zakir Nagar, Okhla, New Delhi and all documents such as electricity bill, Aadhar card, Voter’s ID card etc., show that he is the owner of the property admeasuring 200 square yards. However, on the basis of forged title documents, such as GPA, possession letter, Will etc., all dated 15.05.2012, Petitioner falsely claims herself to be This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 23:37:45 W.P.(C) 1846/2025 Page 2 of 4 owner of 75 square yards of the said property, out of the 200 square yards. It is further averred that the subject property is in a dilapidated condition and to prevent the same from collapsing, Respondent No. 3 started the work of repairs/reconstruction of the house, but malafidely Petitioner filed photographs before this Court alleging unauthorised construction by Respondent No. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant urges that in the garb of this writ petition, Petitioner is seeking to establish her title and ownership to part of the subject property and order dated 14.02.2025 deserves to be recalled as the same is predicated on forged documents and misrepresentation by the Petitioner before this Court. Even otherwise, show cause notice dated 14.02.2025 has been issued by MCD in violation of principles of natural justice and without giving an opportunity of being heard to the applicant. 4. Counsel for the Petitioner refutes the allegations made by the applicant and submits that no forged document has been filed before this Court and there was no intent to use this writ petition as a tool to claim ownership of the subject property. As order dated 14.02.2025 indicates, the same is based entirely on the stand of MCD and there is not a whisper in the order of any document filed by the Petitioner nor there is any observation on the ownership of the subject property and the review application deserves to be dismissed, being wholly misconceived. Counsel for MCD echoes the argument of learned counsel for the Petitioner. 5. Heard the respective counsels. 6. In my view, counsels for the Petitioner and MCD are right in their submissions that order dated 14.02.2025 was passed purely on the stand taken by MCD stating that subject property was booked for unauthorised This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 23:37:45 W.P.(C) 1846/2025 Page 3 of 4 construction and show cause notice was issued calling upon Respondent No. 3 to submit his reply. MCD also took a stand that despite several efforts, notice could not be served on the owner/builder and was thus, affixed on the subject property. Photographs reflecting the affixation were handed over and taken on record and this fact also finds mention in the order. Taking the documents handed over on behalf of MCD, Court had disposed of the writ petition, holding that no further order was required to be passed at that stage. 7. In fact, Court had directed MCD to take action in compliance with applicable statutory provisions and the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in In Re: Directions in the matter of demolition of structures, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3291. Additionally, it was made clear that the order was passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the applicant/Respondent No.3. This was in order to enable the applicant to take recourse to appropriate legal remedies, in case he was aggrieved by the action of MCD. 8. Contention of the applicant that the order is based on forged and fabricated documents filed by the Petitioner and/or that Petitioner seeks ownership to the subject property through this writ petition, is wholly misconceived. Counsel for applicant is unable to point out any observation in the order dated 14.02.2025 which even remotely touches upon any document filed by the Petitioner and/or the ownership of the subject property. The order is entirely based on the stand of MCD that Respondent No. 3 has carried out unauthorised construction and after booking the property, action has been initiated. 9. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the application and the same is accordingly dismissed. In order to allay any apprehension of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 23:37:45 W.P.(C) 1846/2025 Page 4 of 4 applicant, it is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the documents pertaining to the subject property or a part thereof qua its ownership. CM APPLs. 15028/2025, and 15093/2025 10. In view of the order passed above, no order is required to be passed in the present applications and the same are dismissed. JYOTI SINGH, J MARCH 12, 2025/B.S. Rohella