New Delhi, October 6 - The Delhi High Court on Monday came down heavily on a Faridabad resident for filing what it called a malicious and dishonest writ petition under the guise of protecting property rights in Okhla’s Jogabai Extension. Justice Mini Pushkarna dismissed the petition filed by Shri Balbir Singh against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and others, imposing a cost of ₹50,000 for abusing the court’s process.
"The petitioner's intention was not to seek justice but to arm-twist the builder for dishonest considerations," Justice Pushkarna remarked in open court, making it clear that the judiciary "will not tolerate misuse of its process by unscrupulous individuals."
Background
The case arose from a property dispute concerning F-13/10, Khasra Nos. 192/193/203, Jogabai Extension, Okhla, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi, where Balbir Singh alleged that two private respondents were raising illegal and unauthorized construction.
Singh, claiming ownership of the 200-square-yard plot through old revenue records from 1967-68, urged the court to direct the MCD to demolish the allegedly illegal structure. He argued that his family had title to the land dating back to his grandfather's time and attached documents from "Virasat No. 598, Khewat No. 8/8" to substantiate his claim.
However, counsel for the MCD pointed out that the petition was not only misleading but also malicious, stating that the civic body had already taken action against unauthorized construction on the same property in September 2025 - barely a month earlier - in response to another writ petition by a different claimant, one Ragib Khan.
Court's Observations
The bench noted that the earlier case - Ragib Khan vs Commissioner, MCD and Ors. - had dealt with the same property, where the court had dismissed a similar plea for lack of locus standi, holding that "only immediate neighbours affected by illegal construction have the right to approach the court."
Quoting that precedent, Justice Pushkarna reiterated:
"An illegal construction by itself does not give any legal right to a neighbour unless their own rights of light, air, or privacy are affected."
The Court expressed deep concern over what it described as a growing trend of individuals filing property-related writ petitions with false ownership claims to pressure builders or gain undue advantage.
"A new strategy is being adopted by some parties," the judge observed, "wherein they claim ownership merely to bypass the legal constraint that only affected persons can approach the Court against unauthorized construction."
When asked by the Court whether he had filed any civil suit for possession of the disputed property, the petitioner's lawyer admitted he had not. This, the judge said, raised serious doubts about the genuineness and bonafides of the petition.
Justice Pushkarna remarked that filing such petitions without first pursuing lawful remedies "amounts to nothing short of abusing the solemn process of the Court."
Decision
After reviewing the submissions and documents, the Court concluded that Balbir Singh's petition was a deliberate attempt to harass and intimidate the builder.
"The present writ petition is clearly an attempt by the petitioner to arm-twist the builder of the property in question for undesirable and dishonest considerations," the Court said. "This Court has to deal strictly with such people who try to use the judicial system for dishonest ends."
Accordingly, the bench dismissed the petition with a cost of ₹50,000, directing the amount to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Bar Clerk's Association (Account No. 15530100006282, UCO Bank, Delhi High Court Branch).
The matter thus ended decisively, with a strong warning from the bench that the High Court will not be used as a playground for personal vendettas or speculative property claims.
Justice Pushkarna signed off firmly, emphasizing that "such tactics and stratagem cannot and will not be tolerated."
Case Title: Shri Balbir Singh vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 15235/2025 & CM APPL. 62446/2025