Authority: High Court of Delhi (Hon'ble Ms. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna)

Order Date: 17 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Appeal: RSA 198/2023, CM APPL. 30826/2025 (Second Regular Appeal) filed by four appellants – Ravinder Soni, Shri Pappu, Sanjay and Rehman – against Sanatan Dharam Sabha Hari Mandir (Regd.) and several respondents.
  • Respondents: 1) Sanatan Dharam Sabha Hari Mandir (Regd.) (President: Shri Pawan Bhatia); 2) Rakesh Patwa (Builder); 3) Raja (Builder); 4) Hafiz‑Ullah; 5) Haji Hafiz; 6) Delhi Municipal Corporation (through its Commissioner); 7) The Station House Officer, PS Nabi Karim.
  • Original Suit: Civil Suit No. 873/2018 filed by the appellants for a permanent injunction and a mandatory injunction to restrain defendants 2‑6 from raising illegal construction on Suit Property No. 6893, Qila Kadam Sharif, Nabi Karim, Paharganj, New Delhi‑110055 (area 500 sq yds) and to demolish existing unauthorized structures.
  • Lower Court Findings: The Additional Senior Civil Judge upheld the Civil Judge’s decree dated 12 Feb 2020, which dismissed the suit on the basis that the property had already been sealed and the unauthorized construction demolished by the NDMC. The Civil Judge noted that the relief seeking a permanent injunction against future construction was premature.
  • NDMC Actions: Inspection on 07 Mar 2018 recorded unauthorized construction on ground and first floors; Show‑Cause Notice issued under Sections 343 & 344 DMC Act. Sealing order under Section 345A dated 08 May 2019; demolition of second and third‑floor constructions; property sealed on 23 May 2018; seal tampered and re‑sealed on 11 Mar 2019. All sealing actions were carried out in the presence of local police.
  • Legal Grounds Cited by Defendants: Lack of statutory notice under Sections 477 & 478 DMC Act; suit barred under Section 41(j) Specific Relief Act; not filed under Section 91 CPC (public nuisance) which requires at least two persons and court leave.
  • Appellants’ Contentions in RSA: Alleged that only a small portion was demolished, that further illegal construction continued despite sealing, that NDMC colluded with builders, and that the entire building remained illegal without any sanctioned plan.
  • Substantial Questions of Law Raised (six points):

1. Correctness of reliance on Section 91 CPC by the first appellate court.

2. Applicability of Order 41(j) Specific Relief Act for a public cause.

3. Whether the plaint could be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for lack of cause of action.

4. Correct application of Sections 15 and 33 of the Easement Act, 1882.

5. Consideration of NDMC’s report stating seal tampering and re‑sealing.

6. Error in declining mandatory injunction against respondents 7 & 8 despite admitted illegal construction.

  • Court’s Reasoning: The High Court held that the lower courts correctly appreciated that (a) the property was already sealed and unauthorized structures demolished, making the injunction relief moot; (b) the third relief (future injunction) was premature; (c) the appellants lacked locus standi as they did not demonstrate personal easement rights to air, light, or water, nor a 20‑year enjoyment of such rights as required under the Easement Act; (d) the suit was not filed under Section 91 CPC and was barred by Section 41(j) Specific Relief Act; (e) the substantial questions of law raised did not arise because the factual findings were sound and no legal error was identified.

Final Outcome

  • The Second Regular Appeal is dismissed with no merit.
  • All pending applications in the matter are also disposed of.

Topics: Unauthorized Construction, Locus Standi