DELHI HC HALTS MCD DEMOLITION PENDING APPEAL BEFORE ATMCD

1. FACTS OF THE CASE

A property located in Village Wazirabad, Delhi, comprising multiple floors, became the subject of dispute between the owner and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The MCD issued a show cause notice in August 2025 under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, calling upon the owner to explain why the premises should not be sealed. Despite a reply being submitted seeking time to produce documents, partial demolition action was undertaken on 18 August 2025 and again on 3 September 2025. The aggrieved party thereafter filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD (ATMCD). However, due to the absence of a presiding officer, the appeal and stay application remained unheard, prompting the filing of a writ petition before the Delhi High Court.

2. ISSUE BEFORE THE COURT

The primary issue before the Court was whether interim protection should be granted to restrain the MCD from carrying out further demolition or sealing of the property until the petitioner’s appeal and stay application are heard by the ATMCD.

3. CONTENTIONS BY THE PETITIONER

It was argued that the building had been constructed prior to 2011 and thus stood protected under the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second Act, 2011. The petitioner contended that the demolition order dated December 2024 was never served and only came to light when subsequent notices were issued in 2025. It was emphasized that the relief sought was limited, namely, protection from coercive action until the statutory appeal was adjudicated, especially in view of the non-functioning ATMCD.

4. CONTENTIONS BY THE RESPONDENTS

The MCD maintained that a demolition order had been passed on 5 December 2024 after following due process, and that the petitioner had knowledge of earlier notices issued in 2024. It was further submitted that the action taken was in accordance with law and that a related writ petition had already been adjudicated in 2024, with contempt proceedings arising therefrom still pending.

5. LAW AND CASE LAW DISCUSSION

The matter was examined in light of Section 345A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, which empowers the corporation to act against unauthorized constructions. The petitioner relied upon the Special Provisions Act, 2011, which safeguards certain constructions existing prior to 2011. Judicial precedent has affirmed that the right to appeal is a substantive right, and courts must ensure access to such remedies when statutory forums are non-functional. The Supreme Court in Esha Ekta Apartments CHS Ltd. v. MCGM (2013) underscored the importance of safeguarding procedural fairness and protecting individuals from irreversible harm caused by demolition.

6. COURT OBSERVED

The Court noted that the petitioner’s appeal was pending before the ATMCD but remained unheard owing to the absence of a presiding officer. This situation deprived the petitioner of an effective appellate remedy. The Court observed that interim protection was necessary to prevent irreparable prejudice and to maintain fairness, while at the same time refraining from commenting on the merits of the demolition order.

7. FINAL DIRECTION

The High Court directed that no coercive action be taken against the property until 23 September 2025, the next date listed before the ATMCD. If the tribunal continued to remain without a presiding officer, the interim protection would extend to any subsequent dates fixed. The Court further directed the petitioner to move an application within two weeks of a presiding officer assuming charge, to seek early hearing of the appeal and stay application. It was clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case and that all rights and contentions of both parties remained open. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of with these limited protections.

DATE OF DECISION

09.09.2025

CASE NUMBER

W.P.(C) 13833/2025