Delhi High Court · 2026-05-06
MALAYA KUMAR CHAND vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
- Citation / case number
- W.P.(C)-6205/2026 2026:DHC:4102
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Petitioner
- MALAYA KUMAR CHAND
- Respondent
- MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS.
Judgment text excerpt
$~77 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 6th May, 2026 + W.P.(C) 6205/2026 & CM APPL. 29929/2026 MALAYA KUMAR CHAND .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Aanchal, Advocate. Mr. Malaya Kumar Chand, petitioner- in-person. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS......Respondents Through: Ms. Mehrunisa A Jaitley, Advocate for R-1. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order dated 17th February, 2026, passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter ‘ATMCD’), dismissing the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter ‘CPC’). By way of the said application, the petitioner sought impleadment as a party respondent in the appeal preferred by the private respondents no.2 and 3 against the demolition order passed by the respondent no.1/MCD. 2. Brief facts necessary for deciding the present petition are as follows: 2.1. The petitioner is a resident and owner of two (2) floors of the property bearing no.11/8, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter ‘subject Signature Not Verified Signed By:VIVEK W.P.(C) 6205/2026 Page 1 of 8 MISHRA Signing Date:08.05.2026 19:33:52 property’). 2.2. The petitioner made several complaints to the MCD as well as other authorities regarding the unauthorised construction being carried out by the private respondents no.2 and 3, on the upper floors of the subject property, particularly on the 4th and 5th floors. 2.3. On account of inaction by the MCD, the petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No. 10712/2023. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17th Augus