Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking demolition of alleged illegal construction at Jogabai Extension, Okhla, New Delhi, observing that the petition was filed with “nefarious designs and ulterior motives”. Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the petitioner had attempted to misuse the court’s process to arm-twist the builder and had not established any legal right or bona fide ownership over the disputed property. The Court imposed a cost of ₹50,000, payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk’s Association, to deter similar frivolous petitions.
The Court emphasized that only those directly affected by unauthorized construction — such as immediate neighbours — have the locus to approach the court, and rejected the petitioner’s claim of ownership as an attempt to circumvent this limitation.
Facts
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking directions to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and other authorities to demolish alleged unauthorized construction being carried out on property bearing No. F-13/10, measuring 200 sq. yards, situated at Khasra Nos. 192/193/203, Jogabai Extension, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi. The petitioner asserted that the property belonged to him, relying on revenue records from 1967–68 that purportedly showed his father and grandfather’s ownership.
The petitioner claimed that respondents Nos. 4 and 5 had encroached upon his property and were carrying out illegal construction in violation of his rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. He sought immediate intervention and demolition of the construction.
The MCD, appearing on advance notice, opposed the petition, asserting that it had already taken demolition action at the same site in September 2025 and that the petition was filed without verifying the current factual status.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner had locus standi to file a writ petition alleging unauthorized construction on the ground of ownership.
- Whether the petition was bona fide or filed with malicious intent to harass the builder and misuse judicial proceedings.
- Whether the Court should entertain a writ petition when the petitioner had not filed any civil suit for ownership or possession.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that he was the lawful owner of the property based on historical revenue records (Virasat No. 598, Khewat No. 8/8) dating back to the 1960s. He contended that respondents Nos. 4 and 5 had trespassed upon his ancestral property and carried out illegal construction in violation of municipal norms. He claimed that the encroachment violated his fundamental rights to equality and life under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
He urged the Court to direct MCD and the police to demolish the illegal structure and restore his ownership. The petitioner further alleged that authorities were neglecting their statutory duties by not preventing the construction, thereby compelling him to seek judicial intervention.
Respondent’s Arguments
The MCD’s counsel submitted that the petition was malafide and motivated, pointing out that another writ petition—W.P.(C) 13237/2025 titled Ragib Khan v. Commissioner MCD & Ors.—had already been filed in respect of the same property. In that case, the Court had on 19 September 2025 recorded that MCD had taken requisite demolition action and filed a status report with photographs showing compliance.
The MCD contended that despite this, the petitioner filed the present petition without verifying the facts, thereby attempting to re-litigate the issue under a different guise. Counsel argued that the petitioner’s claim of ownership was baseless since he had not produced any valid title documents or filed a civil suit for possession.
Further, the MCD asserted that the petition was a ploy to harass the property builder and extract unlawful gains. It requested the Court to impose exemplary costs to discourage such misuse of the judicial process.
Analysis of the Law
The Court analyzed the issue of locus standi in unauthorized construction cases. Relying on established precedents, it reiterated that only immediate neighbours or those directly affected by such constructions have the legal right to file petitions. Ownership disputes or general grievances cannot form the basis of a writ petition under Article 226.
The Court further noted that the petitioner, whose address was in Faridabad, Haryana, lived far from the property in question and had not filed any civil proceedings for possession. The absence of such action, despite claiming ownership, cast serious doubt on the bona fides of the petition.
Justice Mini Pushkarna emphasized that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked for private property disputes or to advance ulterior motives. The Court expressed concern over the growing trend of individuals filing petitions under the guise of public interest or ownership to circumvent jurisdictional limitations and pressure developers or builders.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on its earlier ruling in Rajendra Motwani & Anr. v. MCD & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11050, where it was held that illegal construction per se does not give any right to a third party to approach the court unless their personal legal rights (such as light, air, or safety) are affected.
The Bench quoted from Rajendra Motwani:
“An illegal construction in itself does not give any legal right to a neighbor… A right of a neighbor only arises if his legal rights of light and air or any other right is affected by such construction.”
This precedent was also reiterated in the related case Ragib Khan v. Commissioner MCD & Ors. (judgment dated 19 September 2025), where the Court dismissed a similar petition concerning the same property. In Ragib Khan, the Court noted that MCD had already taken action against the unauthorized structure and that the petitioner had no locus as he did not reside in the vicinity.
By invoking these precedents, the Court clarified that individuals cannot exploit judicial proceedings to pursue ownership or property claims disguised as public interest or civic concern.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the petitioner’s claim of ownership was unsupported by any civil action or evidence of possession. The Court observed that filing a writ petition under Article 226 for demolition of a structure, while simultaneously claiming ownership but not seeking possession, indicated a dishonest and manipulative intent.
The Court found the petition to be an abuse of the judicial process, observing:
“Clearly, the present writ petition has been filed with nefarious designs and with an ulterior motive… Such tactics and stratagem cannot be allowed to be adopted by unscrupulous persons who try to use the solemn process of this Court for dishonest considerations.”
It further noted that a new trend was emerging where individuals falsely claim ownership of properties to create leverage over developers or third parties. The Court warned that such misuse of judicial forums erodes public confidence and must be curbed through strict measures.
Conclusion
The Court held that the petitioner had no locus standi, failed to establish ownership, and filed the petition with ulterior motives. It concluded that the writ was intended to arm-twist the builder and abuse judicial process. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with costs of ₹50,000, payable to the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk’s Association.
Justice Mini Pushkarna concluded:
“This Court cannot allow its process to be misused and abused in this manner… The present writ petition is clearly an attempt by the petitioner to arm-twist the builder for dishonest considerations.”
Implications
This judgment sends a strong message against the misuse of public law remedies for private property disputes. It reinforces judicial discipline by clarifying that the writ jurisdiction cannot substitute civil suits for ownership or possession. The ruling also highlights the judiciary’s intolerance for frivolous and mala fide petitions, especially those seeking to manipulate municipal enforcement mechanisms for personal gain.
The decision strengthens accountability by warning that litigants filing dishonest petitions may face monetary sanctions and reputational consequences. It also reiterates the principle that courts must protect their processes from being used as tools for coercion or extortion under the garb of public interest.
FAQs
1. Can an individual file a writ petition against unauthorized construction if they are not an immediate neighbour?
No. The Delhi High Court has held that only those directly affected—such as immediate neighbours or residents facing tangible harm—can file such petitions. General ownership claims or distant grievances lack locus standi.
2. What happens if a petitioner misuses the court’s process for dishonest purposes?
The Court can dismiss such petitions with exemplary costs, as in this case where ₹50,000 was imposed to deter misuse of judicial machinery.
3. Can ownership disputes be decided in a writ petition under Article 226?
No. Ownership and possession disputes must be addressed through civil suits. The High Court’s writ jurisdiction is meant for enforcing public duties, not private property claims.
