MCD cannot order building demolition on visual inspection alone; Delhi HC directs expert structural audit

The appeals concerned two buildings opposite each other at WP-489 and WP-531, Shiva Market, Wazirpur Village, Delhi.

Following visual inspections, the MCD issued orders dated 15 September 2026 directing the occupants to vacate and demolish the buildings under Sections 348 and 349 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

The orders were challenged in writ petitions, which the Single Judge dismissed by order dated 24 September 2026; the occupants then appealed.

The appellants argued that visual inspection alone was insufficient material for the orders, while the MCD relied on the photographs showing the buildings’ condition.

1. Whether orders requiring vacation and demolition under Sections 348 and 349 of the Act can be based solely on visual inspection, without a technical structural inspection or audit.

2. Whether, notwithstanding the deficiency in the material supporting the impugned orders, interim safety measures and fresh proceedings were warranted in view of the buildings’ apparent condition.

Section 348 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 empowers the Commissioner to require an owner or occupier to demolish, secure, or repair a building that is ruinous, likely to fall, or otherwise dangerous; it also provides for protective measures and urgent action where danger is imminent.

Section 349 empowers the Commissioner or an authorised officer to order vacation in specified circumstances, including where a building is dangerous, and requires a brief statement of reasons for a vacation order.

An opinion supporting action under Sections 348 or 349 must rest on relevant and relatable material; visual inspection alone, without structural inspection or audit by persons with technical knowledge, is insufficient in the circumstances of these cases.

The Court found that the impugned orders gave only the reason that visual inspection showed the buildings to be dilapidated and dangerous. It held that such inspection, without a technical structural assessment, did not provide adequate relevant material for demolition or vacation orders.

However, the photographs showed apparent deterioration, and the appellants’ counsel acknowledged that the first- and second-floor structures were prima facie unsafe.

The Court therefore directed fresh proceedings based on an expert structural inspection, while imposing an interim restriction on operating the ground-floor shops.

The MCD was directed to obtain an expert structural inspection within two days, provide the report to the appellants, allow them two days to respond, and have the competent authority make a final decision within the following two days.

The report was to be served on the appellants’ counsel.

The ground-floor shops were not to operate pending that decision; any further demolition or removal order could be challenged through remedies available in law.

The MCD was also directed to consider repair or strengthening measures where appropriate.