Delhi High Court Warns Against Misuse Of Pleas Over Unauthorized Constructions, Fines Litigant ₹50K For 'Arm Twisting'

The Delhi High Court yesterday warned against the misuse of petitions being filed by unscrupulous persons alleging unauthorized constructions, underscoring that only those directly affected can file such pleas.

Justice Mini Pushkarna imposed Rs. 50,000 costs on a litigant since no steps were taken by him to seek possession of the property situated in Jamia Nagar area in which he alleged unauthorized construction.

The costs have to be deposited with Delhi High Court Bar Clerk's Association.

“This Court notes that various orders have already been passed by this Court that it is only those persons, who are directly affected by unauthorized construction and who are the immediate neighbors living in the vicinity of the property in question, are entitled to file a petition against any unauthorized construction,” the Court said.

It added that new strategy is being employed by various parties, wherein petitions are filed against unauthorized construction on the ground that the premises is owned by such individuals.

“Such tactics and stratagem cannot be allowed to be adopted by such unscrupulous persons, who, in order to obtain unlawful gains for themselves, try to use the solemn process of this Court. This is certainly not acceptable. This Court cannot allow the process of the Court to be misused and abused in this manner,” the Court said.

The litigant, Balbir Singh, sought demolition of the property, claiming that he was the owner. He filed the revenue record of the year 1967-1968. Notably, he did not file any suit for possession of the property.

Rejecting the plea, the Court said that despite claiming that the property in question belonged to Singh, there was no suit for possession filed on behalf of him, which raised doubt regarding the genuineness and bonafide of his case.

“Clearly, the present writ petition has been filed with nefarious designs and with an ulterior motive, wherein the petitioner has filed the present petition on the basis that the property in question belongs to him. It is to be noted that despite raising such plea, the petitioner has only filed the present writ petition against unauthorized construction and no steps have been taken by the petitioner to seek possession of the property in question, which allegedly is owned by the petitioner,” the Court said.

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present writ petition is clearly an attempt by the present petitioner to arm twist the builder of the property in question for undesirable and dishonest considerations. The Court has to deal with such people strictly who try to use the process of the Court for dishonest considerations,” it added.

Title: SHRI BALBIR SINGH v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1266

Click here to read order