Facts
The petitioner filed a contempt petition alleging wilful disobedience of the Division Bench’s order dated 1 September 2023 in LPA 316/2020, which directed the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) to demolish illegal and unauthorised construction on the terrace above Flats C-3/3057 to C-3/3064, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
Source reference: para. 1; p. 1In its updated Status Report dated 24 March 2026, the MCD addressed the structure existing on the terrace.
Source reference: para. 2; p. 1The petitioner produced a photograph to demonstrate that the terrace structure continued to exist.
Source reference: para. 3; p. 2The MCD submitted that the structure was uninhabitable, while a private party stated that the portion relating to installation of a lift had been removed.
Source reference: para. 5; p. 3It was further submitted that the occupants of the second and third floors had obtained MCD approval for installation of the lift on 13 November 2025, but had taken no further action during the pendency of the contempt petition.
Source reference: paras. 6–8; pp. 3–4Issues
Whether the continued existence of the structure on the terrace constituted non-compliance with the Division Bench’s direction to demolish the illegal and unauthorised construction.
Source reference: paras. 1–3, 5 and 10; pp. 1–3Whether any further action concerning installation of a lift could be undertaken, and if so, subject to what conditions.
Source reference: paras. 6–9; pp. 3–4What consequential directions were required for removal of the terrace structure and filing of compliance.
Source reference: paras. 10–14; p. 4Law Applied
The Court applied the principle that a binding judicial direction must be complied with and that an allegedly unauthorised structure covered by the Court’s demolition order must be completely removed by the competent municipal authority.
Source reference: paras. 1 and 10; pp. 1, 4The Court also applied the principle that construction or installation activity, including installation of a lift, must be undertaken strictly in accordance with law and only after obtaining approval from the requisite authorities.
Source reference: para. 9; p. 4No statutory provision or precedent was expressly cited in the judgment.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The petitioner’s photograph indicated that the terrace structure continued to exist despite the earlier direction for demolition.
Source reference: paras. 1–4; pp. 1–3Although the MCD stated that the structure was uninhabitable and the private parties asserted that the lift-related portion had been removed, these submissions did not justify retention of the remaining terrace structure.
Source reference: paras. 5–6; p. 3The Court therefore directed the MCD to remove the existing structure completely.
Source reference: para. 10; p. 4At the same time, the Court distinguished the proposed lift installation from the unauthorised structure and permitted any future action only in accordance with law and after obtaining all requisite approvals.
Source reference: paras. 7–9; p. 4Holding
The Court directed the MCD to completely remove the structure existing on the terrace, preferably within six weeks from 28 July 2026.
Any installation of a lift was required to proceed strictly in accordance with law and after approval from the competent authorities.
Source reference: para. 9; p. 4The contempt petition was disposed of with these directions.
Source reference: no citationThe matter was directed to be listed before the Joint Registrar on 1 October 2026 for filing of the MCD’s compliance affidavit.
Source reference: paras. 12–14; p. 4The petitioner was left at liberty to pursue remedies in accordance with law in the event of any subsequent non-action or improper action by the respondents.
Source reference: para. 15; p. 4Original Court PDF
Deepak SharmavsNaresh Kumar & Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in