Delhi High Court
CONT.CAS(C)/1328/2024 of RAJESH GUPTA Vs YASHPAL DAHIYA & ANR. on 17 August 2026
$~19 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010529842024 + CONT.CAS(C) 1328/2024 RAJESH GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Bimlesh Kumar & Ms. Tahseen M Siddique, Advocates (through VC) versus YASHPAL DAHIYA & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Kushagra Kumar, SPC for
$~19
*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
#
CNR No. DLHC010529842024
+
CONT.CAS(C) 1328/2024
RAJESH GUPTA
.....Petitioner
Through:
Mr. Bimlesh Kumar & Ms. Tahseen
M Siddique, Advocates (through VC)
versus
YASHPAL DAHIYA & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through:
Mr. Kushagra Kumar, SPC for Delhi
Police
Email: kushagrakansal@gmail.com
Mr. Tushar Sannu, Mr. Devvrat and
Mr. Ritik Anmol, Advocates for DDA
Mr. Akhil Mittal, SC MCD, with Ms.
Riddhi Jain, and Ms. Shayna Das
Pattanayak, Advocates for MCD
Mob: 9212504099
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
% 17.08.2026
1. The present petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the directions as contained in the order dated 29th November, 2023, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 2659/2018.
2. Vide order dated 29th November, 2023, it had been directed as follows: “1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition with regard to illegal construction in several properties enumerated in annexure P-3 to the writ petition.
2. By order dated 19.01.2023, it was noted that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi [“MCD”] had taken action against some of the unauthorised construction in Village Gari Burari, but the action has been stopped in view of an officer order dated 24.11.2022 issued by the Additional Commissioner (Engineering), which states that the land falls within the domain of the Delhi Development Authority [“DDA”]. DDA was impleaded as respondent No. 3.
3. Although DDA has not filed an affidavit despite opportunity, Mr. Siddhant Nath, learned counsel for DDA states that he has been tentatively instructed that the issue of whether the village is within the jurisdiction of DDA also requires to be examined.
4. Having regard to the fact that more than one agency is involved, I am of the view that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the Special Task Force [“STF”] constituted by the Supreme Court vide orders dated 24.04.2018 and 18.07.2018 in W.P.(C) 4677/1985 [M.C. Mehta vs Union of India & Ors.]. The STF, headed by the Vice Chaiman, DDA consists of 15 members from all the agencies, including DDA and MCD. The STF would, therefore, be in a position to take necessary action irrespective of the jurisdictional aspect noted above.
5. Mr. Bimlesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, requests that the present petition be treated as a complaint to the STF and the STF be directed to act upon it in a time bound manner.
6. Having regard to the above, the petition is disposed of with a direction that the present petition will be treated as a representation to the STF. The STF is directed to take up the matter expeditiously and ensure that necessary directions are given to the concerned agency with regard to the unauthorised construction, if any, within four months from today.
7. The writ petition, alongwith pending applications, stands disposed of with these directions.”
3. This Court notes that a Status Report has been filed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), wherein, it has been stated as follows:
“xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx”
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-MCD submits that the property in question is still lying sealed as of today.
5. Accordingly, the respondent-MCD is directed to take any further action that is required to be taken in accordance with law, against the unauthorized construction existing on the property, in question.
6. Further, the respondent-MCD is directed to ensure that no further unauthorized construction takes place on the property in question.
7. Accordingly, noting the aforesaid action taken by the respondent- MCD and the directions given by this Court as hereinabove, the present petition is disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J AUGUST 17, 2026 ak