Disputed questions of fact regarding construction timelines are not amenable to adjudication under writ jurisdiction.

The Appellant, a resident of the ground floor of the subject property since 2001, alleged that Respondent No. 3 illegally constructed a fifth floor during the COVID-19 pandemic, causing structural damage

In 2021, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) issued a demolition order, which was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal of MCD (ATMCD)

While MCD initially proceeded with partial demolition and sealing, it subsequently issued a De-Sealing Order on January 8, 2024, and a Speaking Order on June 13, 2024, concluding that the structure was entitled to protection under the Special Provisions Act as it could not be definitively proved that construction occurred after the statutory cut-off date

The Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition on January 19, 2026, holding that the timing of construction was a "disputed question of fact" unsuitable for adjudication under writ jurisdiction

1. Whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the Writ Petition on the grounds that the timing of the unauthorized construction constituted a disputed question of fact

2. Whether the construction on the fourth and fifth floors of the subject property is entitled to statutory protection under the NCT of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second (Amendment) Act, 2023

The Court primarily applied the principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which generally precludes the adjudication of complex disputed questions of fact

NCT of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second (Amendment) Act, 2023, which provides interim protection from demolition for unauthorized constructions existing in Delhi prior to the cut-off date of June 1, 2014

The Division Bench noted that the MCD had passed a reasoned Speaking Order after hearing both parties, concluding that no new facts proved the structure was raised after the cut-off date

The Court reasoned that evaluating the veracity of conflicting documentary evidence and determining the exact timeline of construction requires a factual inquiry that cannot be performed in summary writ proceedings

The Bench found no contradiction in the MCD's shifting stance, noting the authority had acted in accordance with the law by sealing the property first and subsequently granting protection upon reviewing the occupants' representations

The Appeal was dismissed, confirming that the MCD’s grant of protection under the Special Provisions Act was not infirm given the factual uncertainty

The Court affirmed the Single Judge's direction leaving it open for the Appellant to pursue appropriate alternative legal remedies (such as a civil suit) to establish the status of the construction