A person who does not has any connection with the subject property nor is a neighbor who is affected by the subject property cannot file a case concerning the same. The aforesaid was passed by a single judge bench of Delhi High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva in the case of Chirag Saini v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. [W.P.(C) 3500/2021 & CM APPL.10596/2021] on 3rd June 2021.
The aggrieved petitioner sought a mandamus against respondents North Delhi Municipal Corporation and the SHO, Police Station Civil Lines to demolish the alleged illegal and unauthorized construction being carried out by builders on the land in Civil Lines, Delhi. The petitioner contended that he is a follower of Christianity and is a chairperson of Christian Fellowship Trust. The petitioner alleged that the concerned property earlier belonged to Baptist Church Trust Association and had been sold to Aggarwal family in the year 2005 and is now being illegally constructed in connivance with the Municipal Corporation’s officials. However, when questioned about the locus standi, the petitioner has not been able to establish any connection with the subject property.
The counsel on behalf of the respondents contended that the petitioner’s membership with the Christian Fellowship Trust is a mere strategy to establish his association with the Christian community and that he is a habitual litigant who has filed as many as 11 petitions against the North Delhi Municipal Corporation, out of which, 10 have already been rejected. The respondents were successfully able to establish the fact that there has been no breach of any building bye-laws and the construction is being raised after sanction of a building plan. Furthermore, it has been proved that the property was owned by a company and was purchased from another company and not any trust.
Based on the merits of the case, the court declared that there has been no deviation or faulty plans from the respondent’s side as of now and the case has been merely filed for certain ulterior motives. While reaching to a conclusion it was adjudged that the petitioner had no grounds to file a case on the subject property as there exists no connection between them and the petition has been filed based on unverified facts. Therefore, the contention that the subject property has been sold by the trust or any illegal construction is raised on it is completely baseless. Hence, the petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 25000/- to be paid to the “PM Cares Fund”.
